<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Intel promises better battery life with Huron River</title>
		<description>Discuss Intel promises better battery life with Huron River</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19392-intel-promises-better-battery-life-with-huron-river</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:43:49 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/19392/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19392-intel-promises-better-battery-life-with-huron-river#comment-731</link>
			<description><![CDATA["in Arrandale we are talking about two DIES on the same socket" If they'll make the same crappy stunt as they did with under-performing Atoms it won't be much of an innovation. Making a chip consume less is one thing, but lowering its performance to meet the touted numbers is another.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:20:29 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19392-intel-promises-better-battery-life-with-huron-river#comment-731</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>estani says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19392-intel-promises-better-battery-life-with-huron-river#comment-717</link>
			<description><![CDATA[They'll just blame the battery manufacturers if they don't manage to pull this off.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>estani</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:40:34 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19392-intel-promises-better-battery-life-with-huron-river#comment-717</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
