MrAnderson
Posts: 488 +10
I say “So What,” yet again... granted, I do see that it is a good idea to keep our eyes on them so they do not really step out of line. Oh and granted, it makes good news and sparks heated commentary.
Nevertheless, if you think about it, they need to do this when consumer perception of products can have an unjustified negative affect on sales of good products. Aligning the products they are offering for all segments is in everyone's best interest. The OEMs understand this and I believe Nvidia does too (even though they crack under the PR pressure and shift blame to OEM). This practice can be explained logically and it would be in the best interest to all that Nvidia, AMD, and any other firm educates the consumer about why this market practice is necessary. (geez we have seen Nvidia spin other information this is a time when that could be put to good use.)
First, at the time when the G92 was originally put on the market, we praised the design. It even won awards in various engineering circles. Even so, these are not the same G92s that are sitting in some warehouse unsold and are repackaged; I would raise hell with you if that was the case, but let's give Nvidia some credit. Rehashed chip designs are not bad when they are still competitive. They are remanufactured with modern practices. They are built with better materials that were not present when the design was originally implemented. This has allowed the designs to be more power efficient, produce less heat, and tweaked to offer even more performance than any of the originals could in the same amount of die-space. They cost less to manufacture and are cheaper for us to purchase, making it a win for all.
Whether the above justifies the need to align all their selling products under updated branding is arguable. However, it is logical and healthier for the market. It is more manageable to market a set of related products under one naming convention in order to provide a range of functionality at different levels. If any one reads the bullet points on the boxes, the features are outlined; there are no misrepresentations there (or else we would have a big problem). The old marketing of “Series” numbers to assume a complete redesign is obviously over. It is now representative of a heterogeneous line of products that contain generational enhanced designs by advances in manufacturing and (perhaps soon to be award winning) new designs that push modern manufacturing to its limits.
The question is, are we getting a competitive product in the market segment of our choice? This is a costly industry and newer tech trickles down most of the time. Did Nvidia and AMD bring the new tech to the masses early? Yes they did, but that was when cost and benefit allowed them too.
We have to change the way we think by taking the initiative to compare products - and the firms need to enlighten us and stop cracking under PR pressure. Changing consumer perception by helping them understand what products are being offered is in best interest.
Nevertheless, if you think about it, they need to do this when consumer perception of products can have an unjustified negative affect on sales of good products. Aligning the products they are offering for all segments is in everyone's best interest. The OEMs understand this and I believe Nvidia does too (even though they crack under the PR pressure and shift blame to OEM). This practice can be explained logically and it would be in the best interest to all that Nvidia, AMD, and any other firm educates the consumer about why this market practice is necessary. (geez we have seen Nvidia spin other information this is a time when that could be put to good use.)
First, at the time when the G92 was originally put on the market, we praised the design. It even won awards in various engineering circles. Even so, these are not the same G92s that are sitting in some warehouse unsold and are repackaged; I would raise hell with you if that was the case, but let's give Nvidia some credit. Rehashed chip designs are not bad when they are still competitive. They are remanufactured with modern practices. They are built with better materials that were not present when the design was originally implemented. This has allowed the designs to be more power efficient, produce less heat, and tweaked to offer even more performance than any of the originals could in the same amount of die-space. They cost less to manufacture and are cheaper for us to purchase, making it a win for all.
Whether the above justifies the need to align all their selling products under updated branding is arguable. However, it is logical and healthier for the market. It is more manageable to market a set of related products under one naming convention in order to provide a range of functionality at different levels. If any one reads the bullet points on the boxes, the features are outlined; there are no misrepresentations there (or else we would have a big problem). The old marketing of “Series” numbers to assume a complete redesign is obviously over. It is now representative of a heterogeneous line of products that contain generational enhanced designs by advances in manufacturing and (perhaps soon to be award winning) new designs that push modern manufacturing to its limits.
The question is, are we getting a competitive product in the market segment of our choice? This is a costly industry and newer tech trickles down most of the time. Did Nvidia and AMD bring the new tech to the masses early? Yes they did, but that was when cost and benefit allowed them too.
We have to change the way we think by taking the initiative to compare products - and the firms need to enlighten us and stop cracking under PR pressure. Changing consumer perception by helping them understand what products are being offered is in best interest.