Sparkle puts old nVidia & AMD/ATI naming mess in shame

[Kaotik]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8628&Itemid=34
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8629&Itemid=1

Whatever mess nVidia or AMD/ATI has caused, how badly ever they've named some of their products, this is getting just ridicilous.

The company in question is Sparkle, first, 10 different 9800GT models: [blink]
SF-PX98GT256D3-HPL
SF-PX98GT512D3-HPL
SF-PX98GT512D3-HPL Cool-pipe
SF-PX98GT1024D3-HPL
SF-PX98GT512D3-HP
SF-PX98GT512D3-HM
SF-PX98GT256D3-HML
SF-PX98GT512D3-HML
SF-PX98GT512D3-HML Cool-pipe
SF-PX98GT1024D3-HML

Then 15 different 9500GT models [wacko]
SF-PX95GT512U2-HP
SF-PX95GT512U2-HP Passive
SF-PX95GT512U2-HP Passive Plus
SF-PX95GT512U2-HP Plus
SF-PX95GT1024U2-HP
SF-PX95GT1024U2-HP Passive
SF-PX95GT1024U2-HM Passive
SF-PX95GT512U2-HM
SF-PX95GT512U2-HM Passive
SF-PX95GT512U2-HM Passive Plus
SF-PX95GT512U2-HM Plus
SF-PX95GT1024U2-HM
SF-PX95GT256D3-HP
SF-PX95GT256D3-HP Passive
SF-PX95GT256D3-HM
SF-PX95GT256D3-HM Passive.

To quote one from another forum, "looks like Sparkle decided that every G92b and G96 chip they get deserve their own model"

 

[Florin]

Think of them as serial numbers

 

[Kaotik]

Think of them as serial numbers

Even if you ignore the names, just imagine the sight of those 25 different models side by side in a store, yay for possibility to choose... ehmm.. I mean...

 

[Xmas]

The number of models is rudiculous, but at least the naming scheme makes sense.

 

[nicolasb]

This is what I mean when I argue that increased consumer choice is by no means always a good thing. Who actually has the time to figure out which of 15 nearly identical products is the best? I'd far rather have just one good quality product so I don't have to choose and I can devote my time and energy to other things.

 

[L233]

SF-PX98GT512D3-HPL Cool-pipe

They've probably been enjoying the Cool Pipe a bit too much.

 

[Skrying]

This is what I mean when I argue that increased consumer choice is by no means always a good thing. Who actually has the time to figure out which of 15 nearly identical products is the best? I'd far rather have just one good quality product so I don't have to choose and I can devote my time and energy to other things.

I like choice, and I would rather like it when buying something expensive. What is the point to work your ass off to get money to just turn around and blow it away? Your type of thinking explains so much now...

 

[willardjuice]

I like choice, and I would rather like it when buying something expensive. What is the point to work your ass off to get money to just turn around and blow it away? Your type of thinking explains so much now...

While in general I agree with your assertion (choice is better), there comes a point where it's a bit ridiculous (ie: 15 choices of the same product with slight variation). Sparkle would do the consumer good if they cut down on a few versions.

 

[Skrying]

While in general I agree with your assertion (choice is better), there comes a point where it's a bit ridiculous (ie: 15 choices of the same product with slight variation). Sparkle would do the consumer good if they cut down on a few versions.

I'm willing to bet there is no single place you can buy all 15 different models of these. There is a reason for that. Certain markets like certain features over others. It might make some sense business wise for them to release a specific product for a specific region of the world then. 15 is a bit excessive but I can personally easily see six models for say a 9600GT. Passive, Stock, OC'd, then each in 256MB or 512MB and potentially a 1GB version to target those foolish Best Buy customers.

 

[willardjuice]

15 is a bit excessive but I can personally easily see six models for say a 9600GT.

Yeah, we're in agreement then.

 

[nicolasb]

I like choice, and I would rather like it when buying something expensive. What is the point to work your ass off to get money to just turn around and blow it away? Your type of thinking explains so much now...

This is based on the incorrect assumption that a lack of choice indicates a lack of quality.

Which would you prefer, the current situation (where you have a choice between GT200 and RV770) or a situation where there is only 1 chip available but it's twice as fast as RV770, uses half the power and costs half as much? Is choice sufficiently important to you that you'd rather have a choice between inferior products rather than a single, better one?

The ideal situation is usually one where there is no choice but where the one option that is available is so amazingly good that it couldn't possibly be improved upon and no one minds.

 

[nutball]

The ideal situation is usually one where there is no choice but where the one option that is available is so amazingly good that it couldn't possibly be improved upon and no one minds.

Sounds interesting. What colour would it be?

 

[nicolasb]

Sounds interesting. What colour would it be?

Who cares when it's inside your computer case and you can't see it?

 

[Albuquerque]

Who cares when it's inside your computer case and you can't see it?

Not every computer case is opaque...

 

[nicolasb]

As some people seem to be a bit humour-impaired around here please note: I am not seriously advocating the complete elimination of consumer choice.

It does annoy me, however, that some companies seem to have the idea that the more choices they offer, the better. There comes a point when additional choices make a decision more difficult and confuse the consumer rather than empowering him.

(And there are some cases where promoting choice is simply the wrong approach. In Britain, for example, there are a dozen or more different companies who can bill you for your gas and electricity usage, and each company has at least half a dozen different billing schemes to choose from. Obviously the only criterion anyone would ever use to choose between them is "which one will give me the cheapest energy bills for the amount of gas and electricity I use?" But since no one has the time to calculate what his bills would be under upwards of 100 different possible options, nearly everyone is paying more than he could be. Even if he isn't one month, he will be next month, because the pricing policies are in a constant state of flux. It would be far more sensible to have one regulated supplier who automatically charges you the smallest amount possible. That way you can do something fun instead of wasting hours calculating your electricity bill.

It's the same with things like schools and hospitals. The British Government wants to offer people a choice of which hospital to go to. This is fundamentally the wrong approach: what they should be doing is ensuring that every hospital is so good that there would be never any reason not to pick the one that is closest to you. If such a choice is to be useful that requires some hospitals to be substandard compared to others, which is precisely what they should be trying to eliminate.

Clearly this principle doesn't apply in quite the same way to consumer products, because there different people have different priorities which cannot all be satisfied by the same product. But, equally clearly, 15 different models of 9800GT is too damn many. )

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Market saturation is the term.

 

[Skrying]

This is based on the incorrect assumption that a lack of choice indicates a lack of quality.

Which would you prefer, the current situation (where you have a choice between GT200 and RV770) or a situation where there is only 1 chip available but it's twice as fast as RV770, uses half the power and costs half as much? Is choice sufficiently important to you that you'd rather have a choice between inferior products rather than a single, better one?

The ideal situation is usually one where there is no choice but where the one option that is available is so amazingly good that it couldn't possibly be improved upon and no one minds.

So you argue my point with make believe? You say "This is based on the incorrect assumption that a lack of choice indicates a lack of quality" and then give an example where the lack of choice creates a impossibly good product. That's a ridiculous example and allows no real discussion because it won't happen in this generation or likely two more to come. Maybe if you had argued GT200 vs RV770 with only one product for both lowering the price by both by say 25% you'd have something more realistic with choice diminished greatly, I actually wouldn't take that over today's market though. I want OC options, I want passive cooling options, I want silent with fans options, I want more or less memory options. These all goes towards targeting different peoples different areas that they care about.

Your fantasy land isn't possible. The lack of choice would never, ever go towards creating a product massively better than one you'd have with choice. Your hospital example in your other post again marks an impossibly high standard for every hospital, there is a reason why the world hasn't gravitated to such a solution. It's impossible. There are far to many uncontrollable variables (people, aren't they nice?).

 

[neliz]

15 cards from sparkle.. then add the good choice from the other companies.. and when you go online you can choose a healthy 100 different 9800's .. oh .. what? you forgot the +?

it's the same when I'm at the baker.. 50 different versions of white and brown bread.. and you just stick to the one that's the cheapest and most enjoyable..

 

[Skrying]

But what does most enjoyable exactly mean? It's common for humans to make things more simple than they really are because of the way we think. There is a light of criteria that goes into selecting "the most enjoyable." Much of that is based on past experience with the bread and other things we decide in an instant. But something as small as the packaging and how it looks play a big role in our choice. If it didn't then what would ever be the point of marketing?

 

[nicolasb]

If it didn't then what would ever be the point of marketing?

The point of marketing is to benefit the manufacturer, supplier, distributor or vendor; it is most emphatically not to benefit the consumer.