News - AMD rages against "benchmarketing"

[HEXUS]

AMD has told notebook reviewers it would rather they use proof points than benchmarks, which it claims simply confuse mainstream buyers

Read more.

[nightkhaos]

Be interesting to see if it takes off. It does however remind us of the problem, there isn't a universal benchmark you can use. The Windows Experience Index proofs this, what we need is a few different ratings of various tasks.

[this_is_gav]

It's a fair point. Benchmark numbers are only applicable to a tiny percentage of laptop/netbook home users - the enthusiasts and gamers. Those numbers mean sod all to Joe Public.

[nightkhaos]

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

It's a fair point. Benchmark numbers are only applicable to a tiny percentage of laptop/netbook home users - the enthusiasts and gamers. Those numbers mean sod all to Joe Public.

Precisely. We need a generic metric that gives Joe Public a idea what they're paying for, that is easy to understand. Provided OEMs stick to the Vision guidelines, and they're strick enough, it should be a perfect metric to use. "So you just want to browse the web and check emails, well then this Netbook will be good as it's Vision Lite." "Oh you watch the occassion movie off iTunes? Well this netbook can't play those movies, see, let me get you the Vision chart..." "Okay, we'll look for one of that class then."

It'll be much easier, I mean how many times I've seen people buy a machine when the retailler was all but yelling at them not to get it and they return it a week later because "it doesn't work". Sometimes you need to spend that extra £100.

[McPhee]

Don't Dell already do this? Not to the extent that AMD seem to be planning, but they do have a set of icons on each machine's page to say what it should be used for.

I like the idea though, as long as vendors are actually honest about the machine's capabilities. I've seen machines with IGPs sold as gaming machines before on the justification that they can play games. That isn't on, the user won't get a good gaming experience out of the machine and will be dissatisfied with their purchase (if not at first then a year down the line). AMD need to set out strict guidelines, specifying the configurations that count at a certain level. It might be easier just to offer the OEMs one "Vision" configuration at each level, the Vision brand needs to be consistent from across all OEMs.

[this_is_gav]

Originally Posted by McPhee

I like the idea though, as long as vendors are actually honest about the machine's capabilities.

Which is why certification is the way to go. Not dissimilar to the Microsoft one (with the 'certified for Windows Vista' or whatever), but while being a little less optimistic and more flexible.

It would need a big push from the OEMs themselves, and I can't see the likes of Sony going for it... their laptops are, after all, just the same as other laptops, but with an extra £100+ slapped on the top, so even Joe Public would know he's not going anything more than a £100+ badge.

[Jimbo75]

That is it isn't it. If you have a bunch of machines all capable of doing the same things equally who is going to pay for the most expensive one?

That isnt to say that amd are playing to their own strengths and playing down their own weaknesses here, they are. That being said, you would have to be crazy to buy a laptop with intel graphics anyway.

[Syllopsium]

Not really, Intel graphics chipsets are ideal for laptops - they're low power, have stable drivers and accelerate either standard or high definition video depending on the chipset.

I can see AMD's point about some benchmarks, but not about battery life. To me that indicates they are probably substandard in that area..

Laptops are either desktop replacements, in which case graphics chipsets and battery life are not important, or they're proper portable machines in which case battery life becomes paramount and the user is likely not to be playing games.

My X61 has an X3100 chipset inside it - I knew that when I bought it. It may run Morrowind at the speed of a snail, but it offers Vista Aero support, basic 3D support and plays older and slower games if need be. Gaming is not what you're looking for on a 12" ultra portable laptop..

PK

[Jimbo75]

Morrowind is 'older and slower'. Be honest, intel graphics are rubbish and 12" barely qualifies as a laptop anyway. Intel graphics are good enough for notebooks, just about but for real laptops they are pathetic.

[this_is_gav]

Define a 'real laptop', because for me, Intel graphics are perfectly fine for the vast majority of systems, be they laptops or otherwise. A tiny minority might want better hardware acceleration for their HD videos, an equally small number might want some gaming graphics and even fewer will want some GPU grunt for productivity such as 3D modelling or Photoshop, but for the vast majority Intel graphics provide nothing less than anything from ATI or Nvidia.

[Jimbo75]

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

Define a 'real laptop', because for me, Intel graphics are perfectly fine for the vast majority of systems, be they laptops or otherwise. A tiny minority might want better hardware acceleration for their HD videos, an equally small number might want some gaming graphics and even fewer will want some GPU grunt for productivity such as 3D modelling or Photoshop, but for the vast majority Intel graphics provide nothing less than anything from ATI or Nvidia.

What? The 'vast majority' are happy with intel graphics?

You have it mixed up quite badly. The 'vast majority' of hardware buyers expect it to operate at certain standards.

Only intel graphics fail to meet those standards. Just because you are happy doesn't change anything, you are only happy because you dont know what you are missing out on elsewhere.

[this_is_gav]

The vast majority are people who don't play games or decode HD. Why would you need a Nvidia chip to go on Facebook or check your Exchange server?

For the record, I don't own a laptop which contains Intel graphics, I just happen to work where they aren't needed in any other laptop, and have only specced up one 'gaming laptop' for someone else in all of my time.

[Jimbo75]

Why would you need a laptop to do that when a notebook does it fine?

Thats the point right, the laptop is supposed to be capable of certain kinds of gaming and video playback otherwise it is just a glorified calculator.

[Syllopsium]

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

Morrowind is 'older and slower'. Be honest, intel graphics are rubbish and 12" barely qualifies as a laptop anyway. Intel graphics are good enough for notebooks, just about but for real laptops they are pathetic.

No, Intel graphics aren't rubbish - they're suitable for the target market, which isn't gaming.

I want something that's portable, has excellent battery life, yet plenty of power. Power to develop stuff, run virtual machines etc. With 2GHz of processor, 4GB RAM (8GB capable) and 500GB hard drive in the laptop I'd say I succeeded.

I can also note, after using a desktop at work using Intel and S3 (marginally better, but not much) graphics for at least the last few years, that if you're looking at productivity rather than video or gaming, Intel graphics are perfectly capable on many desktops too. The fact they use system memory is actually an advantage over old discrete products which lack enough video memory to support higher resolutions and colour depths.

I know it's fashionable to bash certain products, and I'm guilty of it myself at times. However, ultimately the important thing is whether the user's needs are being met.

PK

[exfelon]

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

What? The 'vast majority' are happy with intel graphics?

You have it mixed up quite badly. The 'vast majority' of hardware buyers expect it to operate at certain standards.

Only intel graphics fail to meet those standards. Just because you are happy doesn't change anything, you are only happy because you dont know what you are missing out on elsewhere.

Jimbo, while I agree Intel graphics are indeed the suck, perhaps you have it backwards. Just because you are UNhappy doesn't change anything, you are only unhappy because you KNOW what you are missing out on elsewhere. If someone doesn't KNOW what they are missing, then, really, they aren't MISSING anything. You can use Intel graphics to check facebook/twitter/myspace/meatspin.com, send an email and view youtube just fine. Which is what a large segment of the population use them for...

[this_is_gav]

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

Why would you need a laptop to do that when a notebook does it fine?

Thats the point right, the laptop is supposed to be capable of certain kinds of gaming and video playback otherwise it is just a glorified calculator.

Erm, is there a difference between a laptop and notebook? As far as I was aware they were, to all intents and purposes, the same thing. What you appear to be suggesting is that the most people who use laptops need GPU grunt... like in a desktop replacement.