Any clearer?
Now we can see what Intel's trying to do here. There are so many brands, and within them so many model numbers, that even for a technology journalist, let alone your average consumer, it can be pretty difficult to make sense of it all.
But there's a danger that trying to shoehorn these diverse offerings into five broad categories, with only a few words of marketing speak to define them, risks creating the opposite effect to what is intended.
Take price, for instance. In the highly commoditised world of PC technology many people have come to assume that, broadly, you get what you pay for. Yes, prices go exponential at the enthusiast/early adopter end of the market, but it's generally safe to expect that the more you pay for a CPU the better performance it offers.
Take a look at the four star desktop CPUs: the Q9300+ series and the E8000 series. On Intel's latest price list the E8400 (two cores, 3GHz) costs $163, while the Q9650 (four cores, 3GHz) costs $316 - almost double. The explanation of why they should pay for these extra cores, that consumers will still need, will position the Quads at a different level to the Duos, risking the invalidation of the rating system.
We still think it's good that Intel is trying to help consumers understand what's on offer, but we're not convinced this initiative will achieve what Intel apparently hopes it will. But what do you think? Do you like the new badges? Do you think this rating system is useful? Let us know in the HEXUS.community discussion forums.
