Hello All, This is something that has been on my mind for a while and I think it's time to bring it up. I am trying to figure out the motivation for brand loyalty in the hardware community. Spefically, I want to address the AMD/Intel feuding that plagues the hardware community. Before I begin though, I want to make the following statements: - I have purchased both AMD and Intel products in the past and have been pleased with offerings from both companies = impartiality. - This is not a personal attack towards ANYONE. - I am attempting to keep this as rational as possible, therefore NO FLAMING please! We have many choices to make when we build a computer: RAM, CPU, GFX cards, etc. We scour the internet looking for product reviews and good deals with the intention to maximize performance within a given budget. I have identified three consumer buying habits that are discussed below: In the first instance, we purchase components from a certain company due to good experiences with them in the past. Trust is built in a company who has provided you with a good product already. You feel secure in giving them your money again, because chances are that you will be pleased. In the second buying habit I have identified, we purchase components from a certain company due to some contempt we hold for their competitor. Ever have a gfx card or hard drive fail, only to say "I'll never buy from them again."? In this behavior, we would rather take a risk on another company's product than see another cent put in the hand of the company that sold us a bad product. In the third buying habit, our choices are based not on research or past experience, but on blind brand loyalty. "I'll always be a Chevy man." When someone makes a purchase based on brand loyalty, they latch themselves on to a given company. This can be done for various reasons, some more justifiable than others. These reasons are including but not limited to: Nationalism; unjust predjudice; support for the "little guy"; being a shareholder in said company; being an employee of said company. I want to say right now that I have no problem at all with consumers having brand loyalty. We are all free to make the choices we want. It is not my right, nor the right of anyone else to tell anyone what to purchase or what not to purchase (within the limits of law of course). What I do have a problem with is when consumers who buy based on brand loyalty project their biases onto others. This behavior is childish and detrimental to the hardware community as a whole, not to mention annoying... There is some degree of "bullying" that can be seen throughout the hardware community in the AMD/Intel battle. Yesterday, I was perusing my favorite hardware review site, when I came across this piece linked in thier "news" section. I use the term "news" very loosely, as this "review" is nothing more than idiotic fanboy garbage. I have watched this news and review site, which I will not name, become more and more slanted towards AMD in the last year. When AMD has the fastest processors around, they are congratulated for thier technological achievements. When they are behind Intel in performance, they are congratulated for thier "bang for the buck" value. In the eyes of this review site, AMD can do no wrong. Does anyone else see a problem here? There is no benefit in blindly supporting one company out of contempt for their competitor. Let me state the obvious: Corporations exists for one reason and one reason only, to make money. When they have market advantage, they will use it to charge whatever they want for their products, no matter who the company happens to be. It is in everyones' best interest that both Intel AND AMD be successful in this industry. Only then will consumers truly benefit. To keep things impartial, I am aware that there are plenty of Intel slanted sites out there and they are targeted by my comments as well. But this specific example was so blatant that I thought it deserved special attention. It is no ones duty to tell anyone what processor they can or can't use in their system. I am not saying that you shouldn't recommend AMD over Intel, or vise versa. What I am saying is that comments such as "a computer isnt a gaming system unless it uses AMD." are detrimental. When recommending any piece of hardware, try to use facts instead of marketing slant to make your points. Comments like the one above are symptoms of "parrott syndrome," hearing a statement so many times that you repeat it without thinking about it. I was disheartened to see that one of the high profile modders on this site got his new thread filled with 4 pages of spam almost instantly, much of it relating to his choice of processor for his new project. In closing, I would like to say that Bit-Tech is the greatest hardware site/community in the world. As such, I know that we Bit-Techers are above fanboyism. Please think about my comments. Thanks for your time. /rant
Well, my entire motivation for writing this came from two sources. One, the Anandt...err...anonymous site's posting of that lame "review" by AMD zone. Two,from a certain high profile modder on this site who I have much respect for and who's thread is now closed for the time being due to intense spamming, much of which was AMD vs. Intel banter. Since my motivation for writing was AMD vs. Intel and not ATI vs. NVidia, thats where I focused my attention. Good point though and hopefully someone else will carry on the torch and say something. EDIT: Not to mention that AMD fanboys are way more outspoken than thier Intel coutnerparts. ATI and NVidia loyalists are equally loud. I just can't believe some of the stuff I see printed glorifying AMD as if they were some diety. For example, on that same news/review site, they announced the introduction of AMD's new budget processor, Sempron. The FIRST POST in response to the announcement was something to the effect of "congratulations AMD, we're all cheering for you!" UGH! Fanboyism at its worst! I mean, getting worked up about the new A64 FX-53 or something I could understand, but singing praise about the new lower performance budget chip for use in low end home computers???
Lighten up, the Prescott survival kit goes to show that both AMD and Intel can have heat issues. In fact, neither manufacturer has been at the top all the time. It's just a joke. Hey, it could be worse, at least they haven't yet fried an egg on a Prescott or knowingly killed a CPU by pulling it's heat-sink with the system running(anyone remember those?)... Besides, what do you expect from AMDZone.com? I think I'll go over there right now and post a review of a P4 in which it will out-perform all AMD CPUs(with the right benchmarks, any CPU can out-perform any other CPU) and count the seconds it takes for me to get banned. I bought my first AMD CPU for a number of reasons, it was high performance at the time, I could not afford anything from Intel at the time (even for a lower performance Intel CPU), and I wanted to get away from Intel. At the time, I was at a forum packed with Intel fans, and they were constantly recomending lower performance Intels for a higher price, claiming "they more reliable." To date, I can count the number of times of my PC's software (Win2K) has crashed on one hand. Most of the software crashes I've encountered are my own fault. The only hard-ware crashes I've had was a Maxtor HD and floppy dieing. I know an Intel supporter who constantly bashes VIA, nVidia, Sis, and even AMD chipsets claiming the only thing he'd ever work on is an Intel chipset. Come on, I have not yet encountered any chipset related issues with my KT-333('cept I wish the thing could support a 333MHz FSB). My point of this post is that there is brand loyalty for AMD, but there is also brand loyalty for Intel. L J
My reasons for choosing one over the other are easy: Price. Back before I had a real job and money was tight, AMD was the only way to go, it was fast enough and fit the budget but I would have sold various body parts for an Intel. I continued to stick to AMD simply because that's what I was familiar with. At work I use an Intel and AMD at home. Either work just as well. Same for video cards. I was a big nVidia fan for a long time until right after I had my 4th nVidia card, a GeForce 4 for a few months and I started to hear and later see for myself what advances ATI had made. Before then, I wouldn't have touched an ATI or recommended one because I believed their drivers were total crap, and really they were. nVidia's were pretty solid and way more trustworthy back then. Even after I got my first Radeon (a 9700 non-pro) the drivers worked well enough in games but had some minor issues and I was starting to debate my purchase. About a week later, ATI released the next version that fixed everything I complained about, and I haven't looked back since. Brand loyalty comes from personal experience, or at least it should. You can't make a truthful decision until you've tried them all. I could still go either way on any manufacturer, as long as I like what I see, they've got my business.
Yes, this is all true, but everything on he internet becomes a versus match with bad language abound. I'm suprised that no one has mentioned PC vs. Mac I am pretty loyal to AMD, but I have had at lest 5 Intel processors in the past, and for video cards, I choose the absolute best one at the moment. Way back when, I bought a Voodoo 5 5500 (with little research, this was my first build), then I bought a GeForce MX440, then I bought a Radeon 9600 Pro. As you can see, 3 different companies. I think that I shall conclude with this masterpiece: - tf
I hate that image. It insults mentally retarted people, WTF! Anyway, I'd like to think I'm open-minded and don't favor either one, but to be pefectly honest, I'm probably more of Intel guy. The past 3 machines I've built have been Intel/ATI machines (don't know why, maybe b/c I know more about Intel and ATI then AMD and nVidia ). Even though I've bought mostly Intel chips, when someone asks I try to answer with whatever fits their needs best. And I would gladly trade my P4 for a 3800 or FX-53 . edit: btw, shouldn't this be in Hardware?
