Final Words

Ever since the introduction of Intel's Centrino brand, manufacturers have attempted to duplicate its success by pushing the importance of a platform. Today AMD has come the closest I've seen since then by, at least with its AMD GAME Ultra specification, putting together a list of components that can actually guarantee a good experience.

The initial goal of Centrino was that users could go out and purchase a notebook with the Centrino logo and know that they were getting a decent machine, regardless of who made it. It would have wireless, good performance and good battery life, all things that are very important to notebook users. The AMD GAME! program has similarly lofty goals; AMD wants anyone who purchases a GAME! PC or a GAME! Ready peripheral to have a good overall gaming experience.


These are the only logos AMD was allowed to use in support of AMD GAME! but we're told to expect retail avability of GAME! PCs in the second half of 2008. Online system builders like Alienware and Velocity Micro should be shipping GAME! PCs immediately.

However, Centrino was successful not only because of good hardware choices, but a multi-billion dollar marketing campaign by Intel. The concern is that AMD won't have what is necessary to make AMD GAME! a success. The logo program is a good starting point, but I can't help but wonder if something like this won't truly take off until Intel tries its hand at it. Wait for Larrabee and we may see just that.

The AMD GAME! Requirements
POST A COMMENT

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    Not to mention things like a Parent shopping for their kid...this takes guesswork out of their purchasing a home computer...With a simple tag on the computer saying that it is suitable for gaming would hopefully relieve that. I do agree that the tags are ambiguous, and also that with bottom line thinking in computer companies that this may not fly as well as it could, and actually generate resentment. But overall, I think it will help educate people and really be of value to the PC gaming industry...I bet Valve will be thrilled if this takes off. Reply
  • Pythias - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link

    "...vendors who face returns.."

    What? Who accepts returns on electronics or software?

    "It wont play my games" or "It wont play on my computer" never flies.


    "When we told you it would play games, we meant like...solitaire...or minesweeper".


    Reply
  • netexpert - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    That's "Discrete" graphics, not "Discreet graphics" Reply
  • Quidam67 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Great article, and I like the idea. Certainly not original (eg. Centrino).

    BTW, Centrino got around the "moving target" issue otherwise known as progress, not by attaching a year to the certification logo but by updating the way the logo looks. While this method is somewhat more ambiguous, it is a fair compromise and I suspect AMD will do the same.

    Someone mentioned Games for Windows (Live), Please let me get on my soapbox: That is probably the biggest opportunity flushed down the toilet I've witnessed from MS in recent times. Considering that they had Xbox Live available as a template (and shining example) it makes it all the more appalling to witness what MS did with this. Logging into GFW should not require running a game. Online gaming is about community. People want to see who's online and what they are playing, and then make a decision about what to boot up -or perhaps they want to message their clan members and organise the evenings entertainment. At least Steam understands that, but GFW should have defeated Steam hands-down. MS should have made something brilliant that unified the PC gaming community by providing a robust and feature rich platform (whether in XP or Vista), but instead they blew it.
    Reply
  • chizow - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Reminds me of Bill Paxton in the original Alien. :)

    I'm actually surprised it took AMD this long to leverage their position as the only complete PC gaming platform. Unfortunately, they've never been in a weaker position in their key product areas, CPU and GPU. Even with competitive products, often at attractive price points, the average consumer will still only see "2nd best" when they see these stickers on PCs. Hell, that happened years ago with Intel dominating marketshare even when AMD had the faster chips.
    Reply
  • can - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link

    Seconded, they almost should have done this out of the gate...It was the kind of thing I was hoping for out of their purchase of ATI...Well that and new chipsets and technology, but that's a given. Reply
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I don't know, I think the consumer this program is created for just doesn't have that much of a clue. Reply
  • AssBall - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    Sadly I think you might be right...

    What value does another flashy sticker on your PC add when there are 18 other ones you also don't care about or understand. For AMD's "casual gamer" market, its kind of akin to saying: meh, standards, shmanderds... If people want to be lazy about their investments and purchases and then get disapointed because they find out they were retarded later, that's their deal, not manufacturer's.
    Reply
  • Locutus465 - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I don't know, what I think is sad is the current state of intel integrated graphics dictating a minimum set of game compatibility. I'm glad to see AMD taking the lead on this one and dictating that we're not going to be stuck with this for much longer. I hope that this program is wildly successful forcing a response from intal ah la AMD64. Reply
  • lifeblood - Monday, May 19, 2008 - link

    I think some of you, including the articles author, should step back and look again at what is a reasonable system to play games. Between feeding my family, paying the mortgage, and filling the gas tank, I can’t afford to spend a lot on a PC. Just this week I replaced my video card and monitor. My new Hanns-G widescreen LCD is capable of a max resolution of 1440x900. A quick check on Newegg shows the cheapest 1600x1200 capable LCD costing $345 which is $160 more than what I paid for my new LCD. An extra $160 is not chump change. At $155, the cheapest 3870 is more than twice the cost of the 3650 I bought. Yet I still can play modern games at enjoyable frame rates and resolutions on the 3650. I know Crysis is stunning with visuals set to high, but is it ugly on medium quality? I haven’t played it yet but I bet it still looks and performs well.

    My world does not rotate around the PC and games, but I do like to play them. AMD’s Game! requirements are reasonable for the average gamer on a budget like me.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now