<?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>AMD's Zacate APU is faster than Intel's Core i5 CPU</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD's Zacate APU is faster than Intel's Core i5 CPU</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:28:12 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20163/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3957</link>
			<description><![CDATA[They're also not pushing Bobcat at hyperscale servers. Intel is weak in that area, AMD could have some solid success if they pushed in that direction. Instead they're pushing at netbooks. Intel pretty much created that market segment and it's likely a fad. They're also pushing at traditional servers where intel is as strong as it's ever been. They've also completely failed at mid-ranged to high-end mobile processors. They don't seem to understand that the platform is more important than the processor itself, not that their mobile chips have been good. Notebooks are the present and future of the PC market, not desktops. With a share price languishing at about six bucks, they need to do something big. Bulldozer probably won't be enough.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:27:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3957</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3956</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yeah..AMD is comparing them so I guess I can too. This site is filled with the largest lot of unthinking fanboys I've seen in a decade. You see, I own AMD. Not as much as I did in 2005, but I still own stock. That means I'm going to be very critical when AMD does something boneheaded. Which is basically everything they've done the last five years with the exception of spinning off their fabs. That probably saved the company. They're not doing anything with GPGPU, at least nothing substantial. Certainly nothing compared to nVidia. Sure, nVidia paid a price for it but AMD is going to have to pay that later. They'll probably pay more.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:20:27 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3956</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>anno says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3921</link>
			<description><![CDATA[People keep on missing the point of Fusion. What AMD wants is to use the GPU alongside the CPU for compute tasks, all with one die. That's their point. Neither Westmere's, nor likely even Sandy Bridge's GPUs are programmable, so in that sense, Intel won't have "Fusion" for yet another year or so. In spite of AMD's years of talk about it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>anno</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:11:04 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3921</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>leftiszi says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3914</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is the video guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH5A4D9qoDQ can someone post the AvP video? thx]]></description>
			<dc:creator>leftiszi</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:10:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3914</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>turingpest says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3913</link>
			<description><![CDATA[damn, forgot that. sorry. it was ontario not llano. and after checking a couple of links it seems that it was running at 60fps, not 30. which is even more impressive. now, just imagine what llano will do against sandy bridge in starcrap 2.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>turingpest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:17:24 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3913</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alexko says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3908</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Actually, that was Zacate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alexko</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:09:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3908</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3907</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@naterm: wow!. you are something....considering ur comparing watt for watt CPU performance of the i5 with 18W low end cpu...lol btw...where is it's atoms + GPU platform. o right. its atleast a year later. @leftizi: as much as i agree with you. i am afraid without the specification of the two platform ie: clock, core, etc. it is not possible to make a judgement. but given its a 18W cpu, it is quite something]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:06:00 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3907</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3893</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yeah, everyone knows the graphics part in the Arrandale chips sucks. That said, intel does have on-package graphics for sale and AMD still doesn't after four years of talking about it. Not to mention the clock for clock, watt for watt CPU performance of the i5 is likely better. Notice they didn't do any transcode tests. Any company can pick and choose benchmarks that they'll win, but it's not necessarily indicative of complete performance. AMD even had benches of Barcelona beating intel's quad core Xeons.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:44:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3893</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>leftiszi says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3890</link>
			<description><![CDATA["AMD was determined to demonstrate that its latest chips could easily top Intel's LAST-GENERATION" parts" Nice downplay there. Still, we don't know which Core i5 was used. There are many. Starcraft 2 on the other hand, is primarily CPU limited, so Intel may had an edge there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>leftiszi</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:29:36 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3890</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>turingpest says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3888</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sandy Bridge running Starcraft 2 would be impressive had AMD not shown Llano running AVP2 running at around 30fps in DX11...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>turingpest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:11:55 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20163-amd-zacate-is-faster-than-intel-core-i5#comment-3888</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
