Intel applies "stars" ratings to processors, processors lose self-esteem
By Donald Melanson 
posted April 10th 2009 3:14PM
posted April 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]
but do they really need to label the stars? do they not think people can count?
I would love to see something like this implemented by a 3rd party that scored not just Intel but also AMD (and whoever else). Most people who come to me looking for computer-buying advice aren't concerned about which Intel chip is better, but whether they should go Intel or AMD.
What useless chart. So Macs are either 4 stars (Mac mini, MacBook) or 5 stars (iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air)? MacBook Air is not faster than MacBook.
Seems like a bad idea. So you'd have to constantly be updating the star rating of existing products once a new product is released? Where to I go to look up a processor's current star rating?
When is nVidia and ATI doing this for their graphics cards? I sure as fuck don't know if a GS is faster then a GTO or GT or whatever other crazy prefix they use. That would help thousands of people decide about their purchase.
yes graphics card naming is terribly confusing, they definatly need to simplify, unless im an idiot, which im not
yay mines a 4 star!
I'm not sure I like this new system. It certainly isn't accurate for notebook chips. Sorry, but as much as I like my Adamo 13 and Latitude E4200, the SU9400 (dual-core 1.4GHz, 3MB cache, 800MHz FSB) is NOT a 5-star performer.
This is a horrible idea, I guess the plan is to trick people into buying the more expensive processors. Most people do not need a quad core laptop.
Also the Q6600 series is fine for most of everyone currently, for daily use. Plus it overclocks very well.
Or maybe this star rating system is for non overclockable systems like dell, hp etc
I agree. A two star E5200 can easily be overclocked to four star E8400 levels.
I also love how the unremarkable QX9000s were given 5 stars like the i7s when the Q9000s were given 4 stars. So a Q9650 is inherently inferior to a QX9650?
this is kina stupid....relative performance meaning every 4 months all the processors get's bumped down by 1 star?
Umbrella!
Wow. Turns out that not everyone that works for Intel is a genius.
This rating system is completely irrelevant without taking into consideration the other system components. What good is a high end CPU when processes get hung on memory or GPU performance? It also, does not care about usage. For HTPC builders a 5 star product will be the fastest processor with the highest power and heat efficiency. That will of course be different than what a gamer, enterprise user, or casual user will want. Understanding the purpose of the machine has a huge impact on which CPU to buy. Then there are things like overclocking, etc, that need to be taken into consideration.
And anyone who is building a PC, buying a processor, that actually relies on this chart should be shot. This is just an awful idea.
This rating system is still better than what they had in place before this. 95% of people are going to look at a P4 3.2 ghz and I7 2.6 ghz proccesors and pick the P4 every time. The clock frequencies being portrayed as they are is incredibly misleading. The only way these processors can be rated, is just thorough benchmarking which gives a score on a limitless scale. And even then, this method will only have a set lifespan because the processors will be to fast for the older benchmarks to mean anything at some point.
Wow, welcome to 3 day old news Engadget... Not only is my lappy processor a 5 star, it is at the top of the 5 star food chain... Core 2 Extreme - finally a processor that runs Vista halfway decently (along with 4 gigs of RAM and a descrete GPU with dedicated RAM)...
Oh, and would this make the Atom "half a star" since Intel has stated in the past that the Atom has about "half the performance of a Celeron"???
They left the atom off because it is the unloved ginger child. Intel don't like it as they don't make much from it, and it is cutting into the other low end chips.
can they guarantee that my new i7 920 will stay at 5 stars? lol
Problem is, what would happen months later, when a newly released 3 star processor might be faster than the current 4 star? Would this confuse consumers even more? I hate to say this, but maybe intel should just use Windows' performance index. At least it will be more consistent.
Oh yeah! I've got a five star i7 920-based desktop and a five star T9400 based laptop.