5 ms·

"Intel Inside" worked..

mort96 4y ago
I wonder if it did? Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I know I always bought Intel laptops because Intel laptops were the only things available, not because I have some high view of Intel as a brand. I imagine the vast majority of laptop buyers wouldn't even know what an Intel is.
- whymauri 4y ago
  Before Ryzen, I strongly preferred Intel CPUs and Intel-compatible motherboards for building PCs.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Intel marketing is NOT aimed at customers. It’s aimed at Dell and HP et al.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Then why did they (used to) run ads during prime time TV shows? Was that the only chance to get product buys from Michael Dell?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Because that’s part of the deal. You sell the campaign to Dell and promise to do co-marketing and advertising - how effective it is when 90% of the prebuilt market is already Intel is left to the reader.
- kqr 4y ago
  For what it's worth, the laptop I currently use for work I requested a few years ago specifically because it had an Intel CPU – not necessarily because of performance (though that was a factor) but also I know how to get important performance counters out of it for diagnosing performance issues. I don't know if I'd make the same judgment today, though.
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  > Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? If you're a Linux user, Intel integrated graphics have always been the most compatible and most well-supported option.
  - warner25 4y ago
    I've seen this come up a few different ways over the past year, and I think I've also read that Intel contributes more to kernel development than any other company. One thing I'm wondering is: how dependent on Intel have desktop Linux distros become?
  - tannhaeuser 4y ago
    That was a long time ago. AMD has shipped iGPUs/integrated platforms and dGPUs with fully mainlined drivers for ages now. Only recently has Intel gained credibility with Iris iGPUs beating AMD's, whereas for the longest time you had to pair Intel platforms with Nvidia GPUs to get any kind of graphics performance, spelling trouble due to Nvidia's insistence on closed drivers and binary blobs.
    - truncate 4y ago
      Back when I was not on Mac, I always preferred laptops with Intel integrated graphics, regardless of performance. It was just better drivers, less battery drain and boards didn't fail either. My first laptop had NVIDIA graphics, and it was whole combination of bad drivers and motherboard frying because of overheating. Things have probably changed, but I'd just get one with Intel graphics -- just because I trust Intel to keep pushing better drivers based on their history. Speaking on AMD, 10 years ago at-least, there were very few premium AMD laptops, and they used to overheat quite a bit, has that changed?
      - posguy 4y ago
        Yes, AMD's APUs have filled the market vertical with good integrated graphics and CPUs starting about a decade ago with the AMD A4 through A10 lineup, and continuing today with the Ryzen processors with Radeon Graphics. GPUs of the era your thinking of had high failure rates from issues with lead free solder, though the Nvidia GPUs on Macs and Laptops would outright fail from other issues, requiring a full chip replacement. https://eclecticlight.co/2015/12/20/lead-free-graphics-cards-a-problem/ https://eclecticlight.co/2015/12/20/lead-free-graphics-cards...
- blackoil 4y ago
  It was one of the most successful branding campaigns. It allowed Intel to become the primary brand over the laptop/pc vendors. You can buy Acer/HP/Dell/... Because they are all Intel. Even non tech people understood that and this gave great bargaining power to Intel.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > It was one of the most successful branding campaigns. It allowed Intel to become the primary brand over the laptop/pc vendors. I mean, it coincided with that. It's not clear how much was caused by branding/marketing and how much was caused by Intel being better (at least in laptops) from the Core Duo days until now[1] plus-or-minus a few years? --- 1. Honestly, I haven't kept up with laptop hardware performance during the AMD chiplet era.
- stuff4ben 4y ago
  I always bought Intel CPU laptops. Could never figure out the AMD naming scheme (and still can't but that goes for Intel now too). Also back then it seemed the AMD laptops were of poorer quality than the Intel ones.
- serf 4y ago
  it absolutely worked. the pentiums were a huge leap from the amd 386/486 and cyrix options. 'Intel Inside' was basically a premium-product differentiator for those that could afford it, and that was well understood by consumers at the time. Ferrari/Gucci/Armani/Rolex/Louis Roederer labels also help to push product. Same phenomenon, people didn't buy Intel strictly because it was needed for specific workloads, they bought it because of the fancy sticker that differentiated their product from cheaper alternatives; even if the person didn't know thing-one about computers or CPUs. It sounds corny, but having lived through it I can vouch that things are really that stupid.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I always buy Intel. I simply do not care for AMD's software jank, Intel has consistently proven more stable and reliable and that's not something I'm willing to trade for marginal differences in performance caps.
  - abudabi123 4y ago
    Among sophisticated consumers you would think people buy a laptop based on thermal envelope and longlasting performance on battery. The marketing around Intel CPU and the Nazi concentration camp style model numbers takeaway from an informed choice.
steveBK123 4y ago
Should have pitched their mobile strategy as "Intel Outside"
- londons_explore 4y ago
  By the time mobile got big, Intel was no longer an ideas company. There is no way they could have come up with a tagline this good.
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    Intel, if you're listening.. I hope you you're able to find this tagline and offer me a 7 figure contract for more of these ideas
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
It was the bunny suit dancers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCNILzZsWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCNILzZsWk
outside1234 4y ago
Did it? Or was there no other option for a long time?
Zigurd 4y ago
"Intel Inside" worked to build awareness of the Intel brand. The campaign validated the idea that, for a certain amount of ad spending, one can build brand awareness, even for a CPU chip. But, compared to Qualcomm, for example, do people need to be aware of a brand in order for that brand to be dominant? With the rise of mobile gaming, the fact that people don't know what chip is in their phone casts even more doubt on the value of brand awareness. Intel got dominant by always having a design and/or fab dominance over rivals. A "one-two punch." Who among PC buyers understood that? On top of that, if Gelsinger is serious about building a contract fab business, that has sales and marketing needs way outside of anything Intel does today.

I wonder if it did? Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I know I always bought Intel laptops because Intel laptops were the only things available, not because I have some high view of Intel as a brand. I imagine the vast majority of laptop buyers wouldn't even know what an Intel is.

whymauri 4y ago
Before Ryzen, I strongly preferred Intel CPUs and Intel-compatible motherboards for building PCs.
bombcar 4y ago
Intel marketing is NOT aimed at customers. It’s aimed at Dell and HP et al.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Then why did they (used to) run ads during prime time TV shows? Was that the only chance to get product buys from Michael Dell?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Because that’s part of the deal. You sell the campaign to Dell and promise to do co-marketing and advertising - how effective it is when 90% of the prebuilt market is already Intel is left to the reader.
kqr 4y ago
For what it's worth, the laptop I currently use for work I requested a few years ago specifically because it had an Intel CPU – not necessarily because of performance (though that was a factor) but also I know how to get important performance counters out of it for diagnosing performance issues. I don't know if I'd make the same judgment today, though.
JoshTriplett 4y ago
> Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? If you're a Linux user, Intel integrated graphics have always been the most compatible and most well-supported option.
- warner25 4y ago
  I've seen this come up a few different ways over the past year, and I think I've also read that Intel contributes more to kernel development than any other company. One thing I'm wondering is: how dependent on Intel have desktop Linux distros become?
- tannhaeuser 4y ago
  That was a long time ago. AMD has shipped iGPUs/integrated platforms and dGPUs with fully mainlined drivers for ages now. Only recently has Intel gained credibility with Iris iGPUs beating AMD's, whereas for the longest time you had to pair Intel platforms with Nvidia GPUs to get any kind of graphics performance, spelling trouble due to Nvidia's insistence on closed drivers and binary blobs.
  - truncate 4y ago
    Back when I was not on Mac, I always preferred laptops with Intel integrated graphics, regardless of performance. It was just better drivers, less battery drain and boards didn't fail either. My first laptop had NVIDIA graphics, and it was whole combination of bad drivers and motherboard frying because of overheating. Things have probably changed, but I'd just get one with Intel graphics -- just because I trust Intel to keep pushing better drivers based on their history. Speaking on AMD, 10 years ago at-least, there were very few premium AMD laptops, and they used to overheat quite a bit, has that changed?
    - posguy 4y ago
      Yes, AMD's APUs have filled the market vertical with good integrated graphics and CPUs starting about a decade ago with the AMD A4 through A10 lineup, and continuing today with the Ryzen processors with Radeon Graphics. GPUs of the era your thinking of had high failure rates from issues with lead free solder, though the Nvidia GPUs on Macs and Laptops would outright fail from other issues, requiring a full chip replacement. https://eclecticlight.co/2015/12/20/lead-free-graphics-cards-a-problem/ https://eclecticlight.co/2015/12/20/lead-free-graphics-cards...
blackoil 4y ago
It was one of the most successful branding campaigns. It allowed Intel to become the primary brand over the laptop/pc vendors. You can buy Acer/HP/Dell/... Because they are all Intel. Even non tech people understood that and this gave great bargaining power to Intel.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > It was one of the most successful branding campaigns. It allowed Intel to become the primary brand over the laptop/pc vendors. I mean, it coincided with that. It's not clear how much was caused by branding/marketing and how much was caused by Intel being better (at least in laptops) from the Core Duo days until now[1] plus-or-minus a few years? --- 1. Honestly, I haven't kept up with laptop hardware performance during the AMD chiplet era.
stuff4ben 4y ago
I always bought Intel CPU laptops. Could never figure out the AMD naming scheme (and still can't but that goes for Intel now too). Also back then it seemed the AMD laptops were of poorer quality than the Intel ones.
serf 4y ago
it absolutely worked. the pentiums were a huge leap from the amd 386/486 and cyrix options. 'Intel Inside' was basically a premium-product differentiator for those that could afford it, and that was well understood by consumers at the time. Ferrari/Gucci/Armani/Rolex/Louis Roederer labels also help to push product. Same phenomenon, people didn't buy Intel strictly because it was needed for specific workloads, they bought it because of the fancy sticker that differentiated their product from cheaper alternatives; even if the person didn't know thing-one about computers or CPUs. It sounds corny, but having lived through it I can vouch that things are really that stupid.
Dalewyn 4y ago
>Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I always buy Intel. I simply do not care for AMD's software jank, Intel has consistently proven more stable and reliable and that's not something I'm willing to trade for marginal differences in performance caps.
- abudabi123 4y ago
  Among sophisticated consumers you would think people buy a laptop based on thermal envelope and longlasting performance on battery. The marketing around Intel CPU and the Nazi concentration camp style model numbers takeaway from an informed choice.

steveBK123 4y ago

Should have pitched their mobile strategy as "Intel Outside"

londons_explore 4y ago
By the time mobile got big, Intel was no longer an ideas company. There is no way they could have come up with a tagline this good.
- steveBK123 4y ago
  Intel, if you're listening.. I hope you you're able to find this tagline and offer me a 7 figure contract for more of these ideas

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

It was the bunny suit dancers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCNILzZsWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCNILzZsWk

outside1234 4y ago

Did it? Or was there no other option for a long time?

Zigurd 4y ago

"Intel Inside" worked to build awareness of the Intel brand. The campaign validated the idea that, for a certain amount of ad spending, one can build brand awareness, even for a CPU chip. But, compared to Qualcomm, for example, do people need to be aware of a brand in order for that brand to be dominant? With the rise of mobile gaming, the fact that people don't know what chip is in their phone casts even more doubt on the value of brand awareness. Intel got dominant by always having a design and/or fab dominance over rivals. A "one-two punch." Who among PC buyers understood that? On top of that, if Gelsinger is serious about building a contract fab business, that has sales and marketing needs way outside of anything Intel does today.