Comments Locked

57 Comments

Back to Article

  • Holly - Monday, May 26, 2008 - link

    Tbh this sticker campaign is just a advertisement to catch computer greenhorns.
    As a rating system of computer performance it sux since there is nothing to compare with from other manufacturers (Intel, nVidia).
    Also, why use such a stupid system of rating, when you have integrated rating system with Windows Vista; any newer game already has data available how much points are needed for minimal and recommended configuration.
    Nope AMD, this isn't the way...
  • Kyanzes - Sunday, May 25, 2008 - link

    "AMD! The bitter side of gaming!"
  • Wolfcastle - Sunday, May 25, 2008 - link

    Among developers and engineers, ok no problem. From the marketing team, wowie wow wow wow! Spell check!
  • fkinwah - Friday, May 23, 2008 - link

    Another marketing gimmick! Requirement for PC Game could change significantly month over month. Can AMD guarantee and accountable to the consumer who buying PC with Game! Ultra label off the shelf (could be old PC inventory launch many months ago) still able to demostate ULTRA performance with the latest and highest requirement PC Games in the market? Obsolutely Not. So this label is totally not making any sense and will not benefit the consumer in fact just creating more confusion and help dealer to convince, push and sell their old inventory for higher price.

    Say YES to AMD Puma, Say NO to AMD Games!
  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    I said this before in another post, but I'll say it again here...If this takes off, it may provide developers a fairly standard set of benchmarks to design for. Things do become dated, and that is an issue, but upgradability is part of the x86 PC, I think overall it's a good thing.
  • Ratzenheich - Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - link

    I've seen some other people comment on how the HD 3650 would be crap, won't be enough, or something along those lines. Apparently, they've been stuck using high-end cards their whole lives, seemingly disgusted with the 'horrible' performance of mid-range cards. My laptop with a 2.0 Ghz C2D Santa Rosa, 4 GB of DDR2-667 RAM, and a Geforce 8600M GT can easily play most games right out of the box @ 1440x900 with relatively high settings, save games like Crysis (this is why I have a desktop gaming rig, right?).

    Most of my friends who are Average Joes come to me when they want to buy a new PC or laptop because I'm familiar with these things. Recently, I had a friend who wanted an HTPC that can also play some games -- different from the usual gaming setup most people asked of me and I've always recommended an 8800GT or 8800GT SLI depending on budget. This time, however, I recommended him a Powercolor Radeon HD 3650 with a 512 MB GDDR3, built-in HDMI and sound processing for less than $100 and he's extremely happy. The CPU is an Athlon X2 5000+ Black Edition and the RAM is a 2x1 GB DDR2-800 Kingston ValueRAM. He plays CnC3, TOCA Race Driver 3, CoD4, HL2, World in Conflict, and a slew of many of the newer games at their pre-set 'high' settings and 2x AA at WXGA resolution and everything looked incredibly smooth (and good). It's not like everyone can notice 30 FPS from 40 FPS in a snap. Average Joe won't care as long as it's smooth and 30 FPS is a definition of smooth gaming. 60 FPS is a luxury -- it's butter smooth. A hardcore gamer that loves his PC to death would care if he got 5 more FPS than his friend's PC because it induces a sort of self-gratification that comes from confirming that 'my PC is faster!'.

    Another issue they may have is with the games themselves. We'd be lucky if most of the games out there are as straight forward and optimized as COD4, but fact is it isn't. Maybe it's true that we should just try to educate them instead. These AMD GAME! PCs should come with quick-fire manuals that will show the owners what things like 'anti-aliasing', 'anisotropic filtering', 'soft shadows', etc. are and show them what it does and how much it impacts performance. Or they can just stick to some kind of list that AMD will post on their website regarding games and what pre-set settings they should use to have it running over 30 FPS or 'smoothly'.

    But the whole fact that they're trying to mold PC gaming in similarity to the simplicity of console gaming is might be whimsical to some mainly because it veers away from the notion that PC gaming is for people who want to be able to customize and do their own sort of thing. Consoles have recently been borrowing some from the PC in forms such as Xbox Live, but it won't be as wide as it would otherwise be on a PC even given the same game. The broadness of PCs is what's keeping many away from PC gaming. I'm still lauding AMD for their efforts though. It's a joke having most of the mainstream PCs from Dell, Acer, HP, etc. with Core 2 Duos and banners saying it's fast and all that. But come game time, Average Joe doesn't know why his 'Dell blah-blah system with a super fast 3.6 Ghz Core 2 Duo' is running his game so slow. It's not just broad in hardware, but also in marketing their products as well. If companies like Dell actually said to their customers like: 'To be able to play games on this computer, we are offering the following upgrades to the video card to allow for awesome graphics and smooth gaming', they might be selling less. To them, it's none of their concern if they play games or not. Please, so it's 'super fast in general applications, super slow in games with the Intel Core 2 Duo with an Intel X3100 "Extreme Graphics" built-in GPU' slogan now eh? LOL. 'Extreme Graphics'. I remember one of my friends before a few years ago, he asked me why CnC Generals won't run on his computer and I asked him what 'video card/graphics processor' his PC has, he told me 'Intel Extreme Graphics 2'. LMAO. We had a happy ending though. We went out to buy an ATI Radeon 9600XT, much to his delight.
  • 6354201 - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    PC gaming is not dead. WoW and countless other MMORPGs have millions of subscribers.

    One genre that many people forget even exists in gaming is strategy. Strategy games are almost exclusively on the PC, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The list of strategy games I have bought within the last year include Galactic Civilizations 2, Europa Universalis III plus the expansion, Democracy 2, Hearts of Iron 2:Doomsday and Age of Empires III. All of these games are great and fantastic replay value.

    All in all, PC gaming is far from dead.
  • gochichi - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    One type of comment I'd like to address is the "computer gaming is dead" comments. This is the most ridiculous concept, games are highly portable and becoming even more so every year. With production costs being as high as they are, why would companies who built the games on computers not release them to market for computers. Computer "gaming" leads, it always has and will for a very long time. Back in the day consoles and computers were vastly different, and this is really no longer the case. Example: An SNES and a 386 were vastly different. Now the consoles have graphics chips from no other than the two major PC gaming graphics card developers. Even if there weren't huge gaming events like WOW, Half-Life 2 deathmatch, and on and on, computers would remain a viable platform simply by ease of portability to the consoles. WIthout this portability, how could games ever be created? Remember when Microsoft was using Power Macs for the first XBOX 360 demos?

    Even if AMD and NVIDIA didn't want to address the PC gamers any longer, they would continue to do so because these are the people that subsidize the R&D for whatever future console chips need to be produced.

    PC gaming is relatively affordable, PC which you may already have + $120.00 graphics card and you have a gaming machine that can do true 1080P unlike the PS3 for example. The other thing is that people that some of us people that buy legitimate copies of games do not even consider "gaming on a console". I swear my Wii is collecting dust, my Xbox 360 is ring-of-death dead and I haven't bothered getting it repaired/replaced though the media extender feature was cool the games and the controls were beyond ultra-lame. I played Halo 3 to the end (b/c I kept thinking, this has to get good at some point) ... WOW COULD IT BE MORE OVERHYPED? What a mediocre game, seriously. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, that doesn't make it fine dining.

    The other line of comments that I would like to address is the "People don't overclock anyway" crowd. I agree with you, that most people don't bother with it. HOwever, Intel's chips are overclockable because Intel ia two generations ahead of AMD. Basically, AMD is selling a factory overclocked CPU that doesn't carry with it the same amount of legroom that Intel's cpus do. I remind everyone that the Q6600 is not the holy grail, it is just one chip released a while back now. I am sure that AMDs chips are good/decent, they just aren't as good as Intel's right now.

    I think the so-called mainstream will be happy to see these labels and whatever. I can see sales people in brick and mortar stores really using these labels as sales tools which is going to be good for AMD.

  • davedree - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    the thing is I've been utterly peed off with the pc gaming industry for the last year. the lack of games and how everything seems to be ported over from the xbox,

    I have been a pc gamer for years, and i always have built the best system i can afford. Im gonna cut this short,,,basically it all evolves around the xbox 360. I believe its causing the pc gaming market to suffer. The game that annoyed the most ,,
    Ubisoft,, SPLINTER CELL DOUBLE AGENT. i STUPIDLY BOUGHT THIS and there were so many bugs, i threw it in the bin.

    Secondly Grand theft auto 4, was marketed purely to make a huge income,,, but where ??? in the console market.
    why not in the pc market?? because it would have been copied and shared across the world and reduced sales profits.
    I read that its due for release on pc in october 2008..
    how true that is i dont know.

    How many people do you know who have a pc, but use it for work, and own a xbox or playstation for games but not their pc.??
    nearly all my friends

    have u noticed how the average joe consumer are buying more laptops as opposed to pc desktops.
    sorry i mean intel-tops.

    amd should make their own laptops and desktops, release them with their intergrated (780g chipset/ next version) and sell them directly or if they have to oem , i think theres a market there for that.

  • zade - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    Yeah, there are problems with as most people are pointing out, but it is a step in the right direction.

    PC gaming is in dire straights. Even if the average user knew what he needed for gaming when shopping for a new PC, he would have a hard time finding it at the local Best Buy. A tag just might help this situation, although they absolutely should not allow a 3650 to be included in a gaming PC.

    As an avid PC gamer for a long time, it is sad state of affairs when people like my little brothers, who owns an Xbox 360, genuinely think their Xbox is more powerful and has better graphics than a PC. I'm sorry but CoD4, Bioshock and Gears of War all look much better on my 8800GTS 512.
  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    Not to mention things like a Parent shopping for their kid...this takes guesswork out of their purchasing a home computer...With a simple tag on the computer saying that it is suitable for gaming would hopefully relieve that. I do agree that the tags are ambiguous, and also that with bottom line thinking in computer companies that this may not fly as well as it could, and actually generate resentment. But overall, I think it will help educate people and really be of value to the PC gaming industry...I bet Valve will be thrilled if this takes off.
  • Pythias - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    "...vendors who face returns.."

    What? Who accepts returns on electronics or software?

    "It wont play my games" or "It wont play on my computer" never flies.


    "When we told you it would play games, we meant like...solitaire...or minesweeper".


  • netexpert - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    That's "Discrete" graphics, not "Discreet graphics"
  • Quidam67 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Great article, and I like the idea. Certainly not original (eg. Centrino).

    BTW, Centrino got around the "moving target" issue otherwise known as progress, not by attaching a year to the certification logo but by updating the way the logo looks. While this method is somewhat more ambiguous, it is a fair compromise and I suspect AMD will do the same.

    Someone mentioned Games for Windows (Live), Please let me get on my soapbox: That is probably the biggest opportunity flushed down the toilet I've witnessed from MS in recent times. Considering that they had Xbox Live available as a template (and shining example) it makes it all the more appalling to witness what MS did with this. Logging into GFW should not require running a game. Online gaming is about community. People want to see who's online and what they are playing, and then make a decision about what to boot up -or perhaps they want to message their clan members and organise the evenings entertainment. At least Steam understands that, but GFW should have defeated Steam hands-down. MS should have made something brilliant that unified the PC gaming community by providing a robust and feature rich platform (whether in XP or Vista), but instead they blew it.
  • chizow - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Reminds me of Bill Paxton in the original Alien. :)

    I'm actually surprised it took AMD this long to leverage their position as the only complete PC gaming platform. Unfortunately, they've never been in a weaker position in their key product areas, CPU and GPU. Even with competitive products, often at attractive price points, the average consumer will still only see "2nd best" when they see these stickers on PCs. Hell, that happened years ago with Intel dominating marketshare even when AMD had the faster chips.
  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    Seconded, they almost should have done this out of the gate...It was the kind of thing I was hoping for out of their purchase of ATI...Well that and new chipsets and technology, but that's a given.
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I don't know, I think the consumer this program is created for just doesn't have that much of a clue.
  • AssBall - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Sadly I think you might be right...

    What value does another flashy sticker on your PC add when there are 18 other ones you also don't care about or understand. For AMD's "casual gamer" market, its kind of akin to saying: meh, standards, shmanderds... If people want to be lazy about their investments and purchases and then get disapointed because they find out they were retarded later, that's their deal, not manufacturer's.
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I don't know, what I think is sad is the current state of intel integrated graphics dictating a minimum set of game compatibility. I'm glad to see AMD taking the lead on this one and dictating that we're not going to be stuck with this for much longer. I hope that this program is wildly successful forcing a response from intal ah la AMD64.
  • lifeblood - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I think some of you, including the articles author, should step back and look again at what is a reasonable system to play games. Between feeding my family, paying the mortgage, and filling the gas tank, I can’t afford to spend a lot on a PC. Just this week I replaced my video card and monitor. My new Hanns-G widescreen LCD is capable of a max resolution of 1440x900. A quick check on Newegg shows the cheapest 1600x1200 capable LCD costing $345 which is $160 more than what I paid for my new LCD. An extra $160 is not chump change. At $155, the cheapest 3870 is more than twice the cost of the 3650 I bought. Yet I still can play modern games at enjoyable frame rates and resolutions on the 3650. I know Crysis is stunning with visuals set to high, but is it ugly on medium quality? I haven’t played it yet but I bet it still looks and performs well.

    My world does not rotate around the PC and games, but I do like to play them. AMD’s Game! requirements are reasonable for the average gamer on a budget like me.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Shoot, $345 for a 1600x1200 LCD? I'd grab a 24" 1920x1200 LCD for about the same price instead. Not many companies are still making new 1600x1200 LCDs, which is why prices are often higher.

    As for the bigger picture, the idea sounds nice but the real problem is the games, not the hardware. Take just two games on the list: Sins of a Solar Empire is nowhere near as demanding as Quake Wars, but they're both tested. What we need is good categorization of the games, not the hardware.

    Vista sort of attempted this, but their mechanism overall is flawed. You could have a killer GPU/CPU, but if your HDD or RAM doesn't "match up" it will lower your overall score. 3DMark Vantage actually could work if used properly... something like "you need a system that can score 2000/3000/4000/etc. on the Performance setting" would be relatively informative. Too bad you now have to pay for 3DMark Vantage if you want to run it more than once. And too bad it requires DX10 and Vista.

    FWIW, I have an X1950 XTX setup that can still handle most games without difficulty - and outside of DX10 support I'd wager it easily beats a 3650 card. Meh. Looks like the real solution is to get people to quit being stupid. :-)
  • SniperWulf - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    The point of this labeling thingy is to help Joe Sixpack that goes into bestbuy to buy a computer, actually get a half ass decent machine to play on. Its not about the best of the best components etc.

    I really hope this catches on. Although the 3650 isn't the fastest card around, it sure as hell beats intel integrated and most IGPs. Get enough people out there with those and the minimum spec for games can also increase, etc etc.

    That said, I do think they should label the specs by year. Just as others have said, they are basically hitting a moving target as more demanding titles come out. Adding the year at the end of GAME! or GAME! ULTRA will at least help
  • AssBall - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I agree SniperW.

    The average person getting a computer at Walmart or even their local shop has no clue what is actually in it, and they get pissed when it won't run something and they don't know why.

    Its kinda like buying a car that you didn't know has a 70mph limiter because you thought all cars were basically created equal. What you needed was just a passable means of transportation. You don't want to be an automotive engineer or mechanic, nor do you want to spend time researching how everything affects the performance of your vehicle. You just need it to be able to do a certain level of work for you.

    This is where the GAME! comes in for PCs, it is a gaurantee of passable gaming satisfaction based upon standards for folks who don't care to constantly keep up on PC technology.
  • tshen83 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    All I can say is this: SHORT AMD.
  • Iketh - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    they need to date each iteration... AMD Game! 2008, 2009....
  • Rich4757 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I know I'm not in their target audience of 200 million casual gamers but this is just a marketing gimmick that is more worthless than the Vista/Games for Windows initiative that MS dropped the ball on. At least the MS program seemed like a better plan than this does. I was very skeptical as soon as I saw the benchmark for the Ultra badge was based on a 4:3 resolution, do they even sell 4:3 native resolution LCD's in stores still? IMO programs like this prey on ignorant people who won't do research which in turns leaves a bad taste in their mouth when the Ultra system they bought won't run the new game that just came out 3 months after they bought their PC from a big box store so they then abandon the idea of gaming on a PC altogether because their "game" PC won't run games. Another idea put forth by people more worried about quarterly revenue instead of looking forward to year’s worth of revenue.

  • batmang - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Its a marketing ploy, but its a decent one. I'm an AMD fan so I'm glad to see them finally step things up and try and take over the general users area. Grab more attention, get more sales, competition is never a bad thing.
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    But this is one killer program that if marketed correctly should destroy the Intel IGP problem!! Are these going to be the highest end systems available? No, but you know what... Compare a regular GAME! logo PC to what the average user is using today!! Just imagine how the average PC meeting GAME! Spec is going to improve PC gaming for us all!!!

    But again, AMD does need to market it right... It's my guess that the real positive effect of GAME! won't be felt unless AMD is wildly successful with the program forcing intel to come out with a compteting GAME! platform of their own. Once that happens, say good by to horrifically LCD games.
  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    I think what most excites me about this is the possibility that developers could have something of a fairly standard set of requirements to design for. It could very seriously boost the popularity of PC gaming, which I'm all for...With a fairly standard benchmark to work from, many many more titles could be released with target audiences in mind. I think the problem they face is the lambasting they receive regularly. I posted a link to this article on another forum and the discussion that ensued consisted a lot of "LOL AMD" and "AMD Suks" and similar attitudes. I tried to show them benches for phenom 9850 and compared it to a Q6600 and also compared a 3870x2 to the 8800 GTS 512...It fell on deaf ears. The mere mention of AMD was a cause for laughter.

    AMD needs to advertise this...and do it well.
  • mmntech - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I have to applaud Microsoft and AMD for attempting to revive PC gaming but I can't help but wonder if they're trying to breath life into a corpse that's already rotting. The problem with PC gaming today is not with the hardware. It's the poor quality software being pushed out by developers and publishers that's the problem. Just look at EA's latest fiasco with Spore and Mass Effect as an example. I just don't think unified platforms are going to improve PC gaming if there aren't any games.

    Still, this will definitely make buying and playing games somewhat easier since "minimum system requirements" have been misleading for a long time. This gives average users a guarantee that the game will run well on their system.
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    If AMD works more closely with Microsoft's games for windows inititive actually I think the majority of the real pc gaming issues will be solved (regardless of our personal opinion's about DRM)....

    One interesting solution might be, extend the Vista DRM system to include game content protection, make sure there's a good disaster recovery senerio in place. Something akin to what microsoft does with Zune or apple does with iTunes, i.e. DRMed content can be (re)activated on your PC as long as you can authenticate that your PC is an autherized machine. That way you don't loose all your save games etc should you decide to upgrade your motherboard (as I did recently) there by invalidating your system's DRM.
  • brian_riendeau - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Well they already shot themselves in the foot with this one by designating one of the specs to already be "ULTRA". I think they would have been better off with simple AMD Game 1.0, 2.0... Also I think everyone can remember how AMD Live was supposed to be a good idea and that failed too.
  • Staples - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Windows Vista's hardware assessment numbers are still a much better indication of performance than AMD's certification. I think Vista's performance numbers should include more detailed info than they currecntly do but as small as they are now, they still provide better info than "AMD Game Ultra."
  • chick0n - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    AMD Game? no Thx, After they screwed me over in the 4x4 crap?

    AMD has this problem as they just do some paper launch, get the media attention they want, then they will turn around and completely ignore their promises. Look at 4x4.

    Im still using my 4x4 but, not gonna count on anything AMD announce.
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I'm sorry... But you're complaining about paper launches due to how you were screwed with 4x4 and then talking about how you're actually still using the platform? Comon now... If you're using the HW in your home right now then it wasn't a paper launch was it?
  • tayhimself - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    AMD is now a chartware powerhouse. The merger with ATI has taken their chartware to unprecedented heights.
    DO NOT WANT!!!
  • Noya - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I wish Anandtech would disclose how much they're paid for each "article"...right next to the "authors" name. Just like presidential candidates should have to disclose every bit of cash they get.
  • chizow - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    To be fair, AT also did a piece on NV's ESA certification branding, which isn't much more exciting.

    Anand is certainly entitled to any perks he gets from running a great site, but ya I would've rather seen this space filled with RV770 specs and discussion.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    It's something pertinent to computer enthusiasts, so we discussed it. If Intel comes out with their alternative to "GAME!" tomorrow, we'd likely have an article on that as well. It's part of covering the computer technology market.

    I can tell you how much companies have paid me for my articles since starting with AnandTech: $0. The same goes for the rest of us. Advertising is totally separate, and I don't even pay attention to what's there (like most readers I'm sure). About the only perk (other than paychecks from AnandTech) is getting to play with some of the latest and greatest hardware -- and working from home. Those are, of course, pretty huge perks. :-)

    Personally, static definitions for the gaming market are way too complex IMO. What would be far better is if gaming companies would get on board with these definitions. Then we could have AMD (or Intel) release basic levels like "Game! - Mainstream 2007", "Game! - Performance 2007", etc. and update those each year. "Game! - Performance 2007" may end up being about the same as "Game! - Mainstream 2008", but as long as the box points at a specific specification users should be better off.

    Frankly, the current "This game requires a DX9 card with 128MB RAM" is woefully inadequate. I like the theory of what AMD is doing; it's getting representation for lots of other games into the mix that concerns me. HL2 EP2 isn't nearly as demanding as Crysis or World in Conflict - or several other titles we could list. Don't even get me started on including WoW, Zoo Tycoon 2, Sims 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire -- those are fine games for a lot of people (although I only play Sins much), but all should run fine on pretty moderate hardware. We also don't know what settings they're using; Sins at minimum details is different than Sins at maximum details for example.

    What I'd really love is to see CrossFire and SLI support that actually fully work out of the box without a driver update and without tweaking any profiles or renaming an executable. But that's a different market segment.
  • ap90033 - Thursday, May 22, 2008 - link

    You go Jarred! You guys do a wonderful job and I appreciate all the information you pass along to us.
  • BPB - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I'd like that too. But like politicians and what they tell us, could we really rely on what they told us if they were to say what AMD did for them? This whole thing is ridiculous, it really is, mainly for what has already been posted, but for other reasons as well. The Ultra is already NOT an ultra platform, so what will they call a platform with the newest chipsets and 4000 series graphic cards? Mega Ultra? And next year, Mega Ultra 09?
  • HOOfan 1 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    or most likely many future games.

    They should have at least made the minimum requirement for Game an HD3850.

    Game Ultra should be a 790 board and an upcoming R770
  • strikeback03 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    then again, a casual gamer might not be interested in Crysis, and a 3850 is overkill for WoW at lower resolutions. And from their charts, it seems they realize there is a class above what would be looking at the GAME! Ultra spec, who know enough to actually pick their components (labeled CrossfireX).

    Too bad they can't just throw a sticker on the case that tells the consumer to do some homework on what they can do before buying a certain system. That will never happen though.
  • MamiyaOtaru - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    The thing I don't like abou this labelling is how it will (or won't) handle progress. In 6 months/a year, specs will be higher. Yet the upper level will still be called "Game Ultra" and the midlevel "Game". There won't be version numbers or years tacked on to that, so one will find today's Game Ultra being outperformed by regular old Game in a year or so. I'm not sure how that's supposed to reduce confusion.
  • krwilsonn - Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - link

    Well there is one thing that people might be overlooking. I have seen many PC's from Best Buy or another big box retailer that look great and have fast performance but guess what, they will never be able to game. Why? Because not only do they have integrated graphics, but they also didn't include an AGP or PCI-E slot for graphics cards. Presumably because adding a discrete graphics card would exceed the wattage of the PSU, as well as the thermal and space requirements of the chassis that is designed for looks and a small footprint rather than performance or upgrade ability. Obviously Sony
    VAIO or HP would rather sell you a brand spankin' new PC rather than you upgrade your old one. So if you are an average Joe that buys a pc with one of these stickers, guess what? It WILL handle progress. It will have a PSU sufficiently able to handle the higher amperage requirements and maybe if you're lucky it will be of a standard form factor. It will have a PCI-E x 16 slot so you have a chance of upgrading when it comes necessary. I'd say that is pretty good for consumers. Personally I think its a good idea.
  • Brucmack - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    A hooker should be discreet - not a graphics card.

    Normally I try to ignore these kinds of issues... but AMD's marketing department doesn't know the difference between discrete and discreet?
  • npp - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I don't know how the others may feel about that but every time I see the next sticker coming I simply feel sick... This reminds me of nVidia's extreme architecture thing or Microsoft's stupid Vista ready/not ready initiative... It's plainly stupid and I hate TAGS. It's just the next ingenious PR decision that's supposed to sell more crappy products, but I guess it's always better for some people to have the right sticker on it. (Remember THX certificates? The majority of high-end audio vendors don't even care about that, although their equipment by far surpasses the requirements for a... sticker.)
  • crimson117 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    It's not just a tag, look at centrino. Yes it was marketing-based, but centrino provided a laptop with guaranteed wireless and performance specs, and it worked very well, and it basically drove the at-home wifi laptop revolution.

    So if AMD manages to really offer a platform that gives a reliable sub-enthusiast gaming experience to buyers, then that's great! Marketing meets functionality and everyone wins.
  • Comdrpopnfresh - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I thought having an Intel cpu was a cornerstone of a very good gaming experience. lol
    But they can't add that to the credentials.

    Too bad AMD is in the budget cpu market, and only has a small handful of competitive gfx cards.

    Bet they wouldn't be in this boat if they had just bought nvidia instead of ati- I bet ati didn't bring all that much to the fusion project as was hoped. And the acquisition doesn't seem to be balancing the choice to release processors aimed at the enterprise segment...

    tough boat indeed... hopefully they don't do something stupid like try to drink all the water surrounding them.

    I own a system with an amd processor btw... not a fanboy, but seeing as I'm not directing the company, I am entitled to look in the rear-view and poke at what became unsavory decisions.
  • just4U - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Out of curiousity, I built a secondary system based around the Phenom X3.. Just because. People really shouldnt be giving it a bad rap especially if they haven't used one. It's not far off my Q6600 in terms of performance at stock speeds. Infact there is very little difference at all. Atleast I can't notice any just booting around on the computer and playing games.

    Granted, once you start overclocking the core2's pull away but most people don't overclock at all so I mean it's a moot point for anyone but enthusiasts who make up a very small percentage of computer users out there. You know?

  • ap90033 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I think more OC than you think. My Q6600 is at 3.2 right now and runs great!
  • Griswold - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    And how many out of the (estimated) 250 million casual and mainstream gamers are overclocking? Much more than the total of the (estimated) 13 odd million enthusiast gamers? I dont think so.
    Overclocking is mainly a thing of those who see more in their computer than just another electronic device. The rest turns it on to do what they want to do and then turn it off again, not caring about the "what" and "how". And thats why I think AMD got a little marketing jewel there. Now, they just need to make it shine instead of losing it as per usual.
  • fitten - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    So your Phenom X3, which was launched a couple months ago, compares similar to the first processor in a line launched well over a year ago on (most likely) single-threaded code? I used AMD exclusively on the desktop for about 7 years but bailed when they hosed me over on two sockets longevity (Athlon64 platforms) and the fact that Intel got their act together and made a better product. But yes, processors are fast enough now that people don't notice the increase fro 90fps to 100fps or whatever.

    Anyway, I hate these 'system spec classification names'. As another poster already said, new games come out all the time that push the machine's capabilities... what's a GAME!Ultra today will be below just GAME! in 1.5 years. So you'll see people selling GAME!Ultra on Ebay and confusing people all along. Other than that, these names just sound stupid, to me, but I'm not in the audience that AMD is trying to woo with these 'make things easier' names.
  • FITCamaro - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Exactly. This is a mainstream platform. It's not meant to win any benchmarking awards. Fact is most desktop PCs come with integrated graphics. Even a C2D system with integrated graphics won't play games well. Phenom X3 and X4 processors and ATI graphics cards are more than capable of playing todays games. Are they necessarily the fastest out there? No. But they don't have to be.

    Yes Intel's processors are faster. Nvidia's GPUs normally are faster. But the real world difference typically isn't that much. Even the 3650 is capable of playing modern games on the typical 1280x1024 resolution of today.
  • Harkonnen - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    ....but I do not think that it goes far enough. I believe the games themselves should have a certification to go along with the hardware.

    Like 'Game A' is certified for Extreme or something and the computer has the matching certification. Which means 'Game A' would need an 'Extreme' certified PC to run at the game's maximum settings. So the game could be labeled 'Extreme' for resolution 1920x1200 and up with maximum game settings and for smaller resolution, say 1600x1200 it would only need a 'Mainstream' Certification.

    I hope you guys are getting what I mean. It is kind of hard to explain.
  • retrospooty - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Also what about as time goes by?

    Today the Game Ultra requires a minimum of a 3870. Next year that wont be as powerful, and the year after it will be weak. Are they going to date it? Game ultra 2009, 2010? Or just call it Game ultra and up the specs, thus creating even more confusion?
  • anandtech02148 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Amd can have my slogan, I will sell you "Game On Baby!" for a Zeelleon dollars.
    They exclude gaming on small electronic devices why? I've seen people in traffic playing cellphone games.
    Does this mean Pc gaming is still alive? Pc game development seems to die.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now