Intel applies "stars" ratings to processors, processors lose self-esteem
By Donald Melanson 
posted Apr 10th 2009 3:14PM
posted Apr 10th 2009 3:14PM
It looks like those confused by the multitude of Intel processors out there needn't linger in indecision any longer, as Intel itself has now come up with a new scheme that it hopes will help simplify the buying process significantly. As you can see above, that consists of a new rating system that gives processors between one and five stars, which Intel says indicates "relative performance, not a price-performance type of thing." As you might expect, the five-star rating is reserved for the like of the Core i7 and Core i7 Extreme, with the one-star ranks apparently occupied solely by various Celeron processors -- the Atom, it seems, is in a class all its own. Somewhat less notably, Intel has also taken the opportunity to roll out some spruced processor logos, which should already be showing themselves in stores along with displays featuring the new star rating system.
[Thanks, Simon B]
[Thanks, Simon B]
WOOT FIRST COMMENT
It's your first down vote too. keep it up.
@Randy
Hypocrite.
_______________
As for the actual article, this just seems like a way to get more people to drop money on high-end processors.
It'll probably work, too.
2* for E5200? Processors that can easily best an E8400 with a little overclocking?!
Blaine, Intel views it as profit = performance.
@Blaine Oliver
The E5200 does not easily beat the E8400 overclocked, since there are a lot of programs which really need the cache. Some programs will run similarly fast on the E5200 but there's also the programs that just don't run well unless they have enough cache.
And the E8400 can be overclocked anyway. The star ratings seem pretty accurate to me when you take into account all types of applications and games and not just cherry pick the ones that run well without cache.
BTW there are a lot of apps where the E8x00 series is actually faster than most i7's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photoshop-CS-3,826.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/iTunes,827.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Acrobat-9-Professional,825.html
An overclocked E8400 can thus actually be faster than even the stock i7 flagship in these apps, so the E8x00 series deserves it's 4 star rating.
The i7's dominate them in gaming though, but for everything else the E8x00 flys.
don't feel bad, celeron. its not you, its me.
I still have a 9 year-old 600 Mhz Coppermine-128 Celeron running my webserver. How many stars does that get?
thats what you said to Pentium M....
Negative 4.5?
What about my P3 (733MHz) processor which still runs Win XP flawlessly?
BTW...I also got a 4-star rated processor in my notebook :)
What about my Pentium 60Mhz (or was it 66?) that I was still running in 2001?
I just retired my P3 733mhz this weekend when I got a laptop that work was throwing out. I know have a Pentium M 1.4 Ghz. Spend $80 and slap 2GB of ram in there and this thing will definitely be serviceable. It already kills my old laptop.
I'd much rather have a standardized ratings system that was updated every 2 years.
Don't worry. You can buy banana stickers.
Aw i liked the old Core 2 logos better =( now they just look too much like the i7 logos.
They look like credit cards to me... o_O
Finally..
I am not usually this stupid, but all of the different processors were always confusing me..
Now we need a rating system for the video cards..
I wouldn't be surprised if 5 stars is the most expensive... they probably could have used dollar amounts instead of stars and the chart would probably be the same.
I still don't think this well help very many people. It's not like they can view this in Best Buy where they'd buy a computer. Luckily, I already understand the differences between all of Intel's processor models.
Exactly...... If they think this will drive people to buy more expensive processors then their trying for the idiot market......
I'm sure there'll be a little poster of this at Best Buy to help the poor dumb consumer.
"..which should already be showing themselves in stores along with displays featuring the new star rating system."
Unless BestBuy isn't classified as a store anymore.
yea it says in the article that this rating system will be posted in stores. and i seriously don't understand how someone could walk into somewhere like Best Buy and drop $1000+ on a computer without doing a little research at home first. sure this system will help but people should really educate themselves before they make big purchases anyway, a simple google search could tell you everything this rating system does.
Of course the i7 gets five stars...... Its a friggin monster processor........ The true comparisons would be AMD instead of to each other......
Quad Core 17" MBP coming out this summer with the release of Snow Leopard
and yes.. it is completely necessary!
and so was this vote down.
haha.. whatever
the second it comes out I'm ordering
Performance wise? Shouldn't the Core i7's be like 25 stars to Celeron's one?
I knew my comments would not be popular.. and I am truly sorry for being annoying to you all.
In all honestly I could care less, I was just having a little fun in the moment.
I'm actually a big fan of AMD and have no use at the moment for a quad core processor except to feel immense pride in all the cash I blew.. But I am actually waiting for osx 10.6 before I purchase a new you know what.. thank you for putting me in my place by low ranking my comments.. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm about to get low ranked again because I can't even comment under the right person.. that was supposed to go below MY original post down below
Intel you hypocrite what you gonna do when you release Capella by the end of the year for laptops? rank 6? lol looks like Capella is coming sep30 along with windows 7 hmmm
The expiration date at the top of the chart means that on or before September 30 Intel will issue a new chart in which all chips are re-evaluated, and likely demoted, based on the newest king of the hill chips getting 5 stars. It's also the opportunity to remove discontinued chips from the chart.
How hard is it to google the product name and compare the specs yourself!
A rating system for just the processors is an ever-changing marketing exercise akin to a CPU Ponzi scheme. Eventually the highest rated will get outshone by the chips that have yet to be released. This means the stars equate to either Speed or Cost.
{Bring back the Intel Bunnymen - at least they had pizzaz}
I guess I am not sure how this is going to scale... There will eventually be a Celeron better than the current i7. It is just the way things go...
That's not going to work too well when the next generation comes along. And the one after that. And then the one after that.
Why can't they all just use a baseline of flops? then 20 years from now we can still be comparing our new xxxxx flop processors to the shitty xxx flops processors of 2009.
Seems to work just fine for mega giga and terabytes.
Because the FLOPS is still more confusing than the star system. FLOPS is dependent on the memory and space requirements of the application. Consumers will associate 5 stars with good much faster than they would associate xx FLOPS with good. The charts will probably have to be updated every few months to keep up with new models being released.
I personally would like a model numbering system that encapsulated some aspects of the processor - like, say, Core 2 L27422 for a processor for a laptop (L = laptop, low power consumption) at 2.7GHz, then 4 & 2 for caches, and 2 processors.
How coud people be confused in the first place? 2 cores good 4 cores better, and the higher the number the better it is?
4 cores is not necessarily better than 2 cores, especially at different processor families and clock speeds. My E8600 is faster than a lot of quad cores when you compare benchmarks.
It's nice to see Mr. BlurryCam can is now taking screenshots.
Response from competition:
All _our_ processors are five star.
This is not that great of an idea, unless they require the system to be up to a standard as well.
For example, a core i7 with on 512 MB of RAM and a 4800 rpm HDD with Windows Vista is not going to perform at 5 stars.
It should be the OS vendors who come out with the star ratings, for example Microsoft could say/certify that a system with core i7 and 4 GB ram or whatever can be a 5 star computer.
Kinda like the built in performance rating in Windows Vista?
...
Some people build their own machines, so it makes at little sense to have a CPU-specific rating.
But only a little.
Damn, my Q6600 @ 3.6GHz is down from 4 stars to 3...
Whoohoo, five stars for the SL9400! Oh and ha, I love how the ratings are only good for a certain amount of time.