The PC component industry needs to wake up

BuToNz · 1 Jul 2012 at 19:41

I think really the issue is companies refreshing their lines, we then end up with old tech or reused tech which is no better or marginally better than the previous line - Named at a higher number.

This leads to the confusion that newer is better, but as I've said before this is not just within the computer market. It's everywhere, every company plays this card. It's normal, so why specifically bite at the computer component companies?

Doomedspeed · 1 Jul 2012 at 19:44

mcast said:
If it's so intuitive tell me why should a 6450 be far worse than a 5850, when logically it should be the other way round? you just gave a perfect example.

Because the first number, in this case 6*** and 5*** relate to the series number. The 5*** series coming out before the 6*** series, ect. All built on different chips.

The second number relates to the standing with the series, eg. 4** and 8**. In common series the 8**'s are better than the 4**'s.

The last 2 numbers are a denomination to distinguish between 2 of similar standing in the same series.

Anyone who cares to research components can work that out.

You wouldn't go into a shop and buy a component like that without knowing about it.

BuToNz · 1 Jul 2012 at 19:51

Doomedspeed said:
Because the first number, in this case 6*** and 5*** relate to the series number. The 5*** series coming out before the 6*** series, ect. All built on different chips.

The second number relates to the standing with the series, eg. 4** and 8**. In common series the 8**'s are better than the 4**'s.

The last 2 numbers are a denomination to distinguish between 2 of similar standing in the same series.

Anyone who cares to research components can work that out.

You wouldn't go into a shop and buy a component like that without knowing about it.

Clearly the problem is, he would. If you want to be smart with your money you need to research. If you want to get the job done trust the reseller.

Orcvader · 1 Jul 2012 at 19:54

Although thinking about it, the normal average buyer doesn't even know about the GPU (A friend bought a laptop recently with Intel graphics and started complaining to me why it couldn't play games smoothly even with a 2.4ghz quad core :rolleyes:

). What they think that determines how great a PC is, is the CPU speed and cores.

However, this is where something like AMD's fusion can cover, as the better APUs generally have the better GPUs too. Intel is starting to do this, Haswell will have 3 tiers of IGP. Although on the desktop side of things with the current gen it's only the K version that has the better IGP... No idea how Haswell will be numbered.

EDIT: Thinking about it, surely it would just be better for the manufacturer to deal with the numbering (such as Acer, Dell, HP, etc)? Apple does this, it's nice and simple naming it after what year it was released. So don't blame Intel/AMD/Nvidia, blame the manufacturers

.

snedie · 1 Jul 2012 at 20:59

mcast said:
You're calling people clueless morons, you're obviously deeply insecure by your own lack of intelligence or young, either way you automatically forfeit your chance to be listened to.

How did you deduce that? Considering what I said is true, in that the majority of people purchasing on the high street are morons (as in lacking knowledge in regards to the products they are purchasing: Don't take moron as some sort of an insult, it's a general term, only idiots take it any other way). The whole reason for this forum to exist is for people to gain knowledge, just go in any hardware section and tell me that 99% of the topic's aren't people asking for help. Those who simply neglect to use resources such as this, or even just google before making a purchase are the kind of people who come on here complaining that manufacturers number their products in a funny way.

So why don't you go back to your little corner, play some Zelda or watch some teletubbies and leave the helping to the people who can.

Hagar · 1 Jul 2012 at 22:51

I think that the OP is largely right and there is an awful lot of codology in the numbers. Maybe Intel can tell you what difference or significance there is in the last three digits of 2500 and 3750. Similarly performing processors of two different lines just add a 250 to make a marketing difference. 3501 0r 3510 would have been simpler.
GPU's are worse. You do not need any logic to find out what performs better from the numbering, you need to review benchmarks to even try to understand the difference in performance. Therefore there is no way to use your intelligence so I suspect that we all are morons in this respect relying on others to supply information that should be obvious,
However to call the OP a moron for raising this topic is very childish at best.

Gav_881 · 1 Jul 2012 at 22:51

The one thing i think they could and should do is come up with an industry standard bechmarking tool and technique to allow the "moron" types if that's what we are calling them to spot what machine/component they need to play BF3 or Adobe.

Issue with this ofc is that if your in marketing and your job is to sell 6450's when theres 5850's and the like at a similar price point your only option is to go down the generic mumbo jumbo approach.

"Packed with the latest GPU technologies, the Radeon™ HD 6450 graphics processor is a next-generation visual upgrade that delivers Eyefinity multi-display technology, HDMI 1.4a for stereoscopic (3D) displays, Displayport 1.2 as well as 2nd generation support for DirectX 11 for the most versatile solution for everyday computing."

snedie · 1 Jul 2012 at 22:58

Gav_881 said:
The one thing i think they could and should do is come up with an industry standard bechmarking tool and technique to allow the "moron" types if that's what we are calling them to spot what machine/component they need to play BF3 or Adobe.

Issue with this ofc is that if your in marketing and your job is to sell 6450's when theres 5850's and the like at a similar price point your only option is to go down the generic mumbo jumbo approach.

"Packed with the latest GPU technologies, the Radeon™ HD 6450 graphics processor is a next-generation visual upgrade that delivers Eyefinity multi-display technology, HDMI 1.4a for stereoscopic (3D) displays, Displayport 1.2 as well as 2nd generation support for DirectX 11 for the most versatile solution for everyday computing."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2012+cpu+benchmarks

OH MY ****ING GOD LOOK WHAT GOOGLE FOUND:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

In all honesty if people can't even use google to search for three keywords then they should be neutered.

MikeTheNative · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:01

Gav_881 said:
The one thing i think they could and should do is come up with an industry standard bechmarking tool and technique to allow the "moron" types if that's what we are calling them to spot what machine/component they need to play BF3 or Adobe."

System/ Recommend Requirements?

The problem will never go away, companies exploiting uninformed customers with great marketing. Never mind PC components, I think the worst for this at the moment is headphones. I cringe every time a friend proudly shows off their new pair of Dr Dre Beats.

Gav_881 · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:06

snedie said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2012+cpu+benchmarks

OH MY ****ING GOD LOOK WHAT GOOGLE FOUND:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

In all honesty if people can't even use google to search for three keywords then they should be neutered.

ok so my CPU scores 10,000 does that mean its good for BF3 or could i drop to a 5k chip or a 2k chip and still be fine?

you can google all you like but your still missing the idiot proof this is what you need to get the job done line.

specs such as those for BF3 dont really help things either, as people have said q6600 is a quad but it scores 2900ish on your 3 word google.

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
OS: WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
PROCESSOR: QUAD-CORE CPU
MEMORY: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD: DIRECTX 11 COMPATIBLE WITH 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 570 OR ATI RADEON 6950)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

Gav_881 · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:07

MikeTheNative said:
System/ Recommend Requirements?

The problem will never go away, companies exploiting uninformed customers with great marketing. Never mind PC components, I think the worst for this at the moment is headphones. I cringe every time a friend proudly shows off their new pair of Dr Dre Beats.

But he's a DeeeJaaay so they must be ace

snedie · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:11

Gav_881 said:
ok so my CPU scores 10,000 does that mean its good for BF3 or could i drop to a 5k chip or a 2k chip and still be fine?

you can google all you like but your still missing the idiot proof this is what you need to get the job done line.

specs such as those for BF3 dont really help things either, as people have said q6600 is a quad but it scores 2900ish on your 3 word google.

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
OS: WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
PROCESSOR: QUAD-CORE CPU
MEMORY: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD: DIRECTX 11 COMPATIBLE WITH 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 570 OR ATI RADEON 6950)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=best+cpu+for+battlefield+3

Led me to, and I might add in under 15 seconds:
http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

Doomedspeed · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:21

MikeTheNative said:
The problem will never go away, companies exploiting uninformed customers with great marketing.

This is true.

Especially AMD's clever marketing of the FX series.

A normal customer would think: "this has 8 cores, it must be better than the quad core i7" "it has a higher clock speed too.." GOODY!!!

But on the flipside (very 90's) a 30 second google search (which can be done on a very well marketed phone) will tell you the i7 will dominate it.

Its not the manufacturers misleading us, they are doing there job by making the product and marketing it. Its the consumers who don't read up before we buy.

opstrat · 1 Jul 2012 at 23:57

snedie, what the hell is ur problem?

uv came in here and insul;ted and trolled the op and now ur saying people like this guy gav should be neutered cause he didnt know about cpu benchmarking.

this forum is for helping people. try doing it.

Mercutio · 2 Jul 2012 at 00:33

nkata said:
I think that the OP is largely right and there is an awful lot of codology in the numbers. Maybe Intel can tell you what difference or significance there is in the last three digits of 2500 and 3750. Similarly performing processors of two different lines just add a 250 to make a marketing difference. 3501 0r 3510 would have been simpler.
GPU's are worse. You do not need any logic to find out what performs better from the numbering, you need to review benchmarks to even try to understand the difference in performance. Therefore there is no way to use your intelligence so I suspect that we all are morons in this respect relying on others to supply information that should be obvious,
However to call the OP a moron for raising this topic is very childish at best.

You write in a thread where the number system is pretty clearly picked apart and explained that "there's no logic to the numbers". You then call someone childish for pointing out that expecting an industry with about 30 options for parts to number them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc is rather unreasonable.

Unfortuntely both these points are rather silly. Anyone here could start looking at, I dunno, camera lenses for example and get the exact same idea pretty quickly.

While it's not 100% transparent and obvious at first glance I think it's rather childish to expect it to be with the sheer volume of options available. It requires about 2 minutes educating yourself on what the number system means then it's VERY easy to work out the difference.

While the use of "moron" is perhaps a little inflamatory "moron", "imbecile", "retard" etc were all originally used professionally as a quick reference for someones general IQ level. With the intelligence the OP shows I don't think their use is that far off the mark to be fair. It may have been better to refer to the post as moronic rather than the OP but that's maybe arguing semantics.

doyll · 2 Jul 2012 at 00:46

It's life, get on with it.
There's no standardization in cars, boats, TVs, phones, tools, tires, kitchen appliances, beds, audio equipment, bathtubs,....

chaparral · 2 Jul 2012 at 00:48

Op your looking at the wrong numbers...

Just go by the numbers in the price (if it has £200 on the box it be faster then the one with £100 on the box)

doyll · 2 Jul 2012 at 00:51

chaparral said:
Op your looking at the wrong numbers...

Just go by the numbers in the price (if it has £200 on the box it be faster then the one with £100 on the box)

It's scary how many actually believe that. :eek:

Gav_881 · 2 Jul 2012 at 01:05

doyll said:
It's scary how many actually believe that.

However he's not far from the mark, its just that the price change is exponential in relation to performance increase and only relevant to components where styling is not a factor. (Ie. no its made by apple add £1k)

snedie · 2 Jul 2012 at 07:30

Mercutio said:
You write in a thread where the number system is pretty clearly picked apart and explained that "there's no logic to the numbers". You then call someone childish for pointing out that expecting an industry with about 30 options for parts to number them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc is rather unreasonable.

Unfortuntely both these points are rather silly. Anyone here could start looking at, I dunno, camera lenses for example and get the exact same idea pretty quickly.

While it's not 100% transparent and obvious at first glance I think it's rather childish to expect it to be with the sheer volume of options available. It requires about 2 minutes educating yourself on what the number system means then it's VERY easy to work out the difference.

While the use of "moron" is perhaps a little inflamatory "moron", "imbecile", "retard" etc were all originally used professionally as a quick reference for someones general IQ level. With the intelligence the OP shows I don't think their use is that far off the mark to be fair. It may have been better to refer to the post as moronic rather than the OP but that's maybe arguing semantics.

+1