<?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 readies faster Thubans</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD readies faster Thubans</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:55:32 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20756/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8126</link>
			<description><![CDATA[but they get that advantage, mostly by selling more expensive to make parts at a lower prices, leaving Intel still holding the big bags of money. with bulldozer they should be able to undercut Intel while making more money doing it giving them more capital (and investor confidence) for the next generations) or its spawns a price war. either way, its good]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2010 00:48:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8126</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nele says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8116</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yup, the 'node advantage' is a bit overhyped imho... Let's face it, most consumers won't go for a top notch Intel EE or a Thuban 1100T, they'll look for better value. This is where AMD has a clear advantage. For example, the cache-less Propus is cheap to build and it retails at Intel dual-core prices. I guess the same will apply to some Fusion parts (Llano) and maybe even Bulldozer-derived designs. Although AMD can't catch up in the high end and it can't counter Intel's 32nm architecture, it's still offering better value for money in most market segments. I can't remember when was the last time I recommended an Intel desktop to anyone - most people are just better off with an AMD platform. Of course, this doesn't apply to enthusiasts, but we're a minority.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>nele</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:43:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8116</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8108</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hopefully, so far all we know are not facts... which isn't something worth basing an argument on. I don't like intel's kesha-moment any more than the next guy, because it gives them the opportunity to screw people over. Hopefully, Bulldozer's deign will be what we actually need.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:47:00 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8108</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8106</link>
			<description><![CDATA[here is the thing thou, AMD will be able to release something similar to a quad-core, that only costs slightly more to make then a dual core. that's enough to negate intel's process node advantage... and intel only has that advantage for about half its tick-tock cycle(and shrinking) it should also use just slightly more power then a dual core and be just about as easy to overclock/ramp up as a dual core.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:38:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8106</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>beautyless says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8076</link>
			<description><![CDATA[1090T have better results than the Q6600 in all tests from the link you provided. Did you forgot to check the description of the test. Some of it higher score is not mean better.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>beautyless</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Nov 2010 00:03:42 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8076</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8058</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I hate the way AMD clocks its CPU’s as of late. Keep the bloody things with a 200MHz increments and not this 100MHz nonsense between processors. Example: 3.0 GHz, 3.2 GHz, 3.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz etc, is good. 3.0 GHz then 3.1 GHz then 3.2 GHz and so on is useless. It only seems as though AMD is trying to keep the clocks as low as possible. They can easily achieve 3.8GHz & 4.0GHz models any time now. But where are they? Other than that little Pet Peeve I have AMD is going a great job in terms of Price/Performance. They are making many gamers very HAPPY!!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:44:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8058</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>anno says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8057</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thubans are of course especially suited for multithreaded apps. You can see it running circles around the Q6600 in such cases, for probably about the same money. Indeed, if you only use a few threads, the Q6600 may work out better. Don't expect this to change too much when Bulldozer arrives (compared to Sandy Bridge), that too will probably love multithreaded apps, depending on how good AMD's turbo turns out to be. The official word on its arrival is still "2011", but expect a little more detail regarding that at Analyst Day, November 9.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>anno</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:37:05 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8057</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>arclight says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8045</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If this was released back when Intel was releasing the Penryn quads then it would have been awesome. But now after Intel released Nehalem, Westmere and now prepares to launch Sandy Bridge, spending money on AMD's flagship seems like a bad investment. Still they have some good priced quads, tricores and dual cores. Disclaimer: I am not an Intel fanboy, on my next build i will use a Phenom II x4 945 which is just a few bucks more then a Corei3 540.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>arclight</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:07:23 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8045</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Memristor says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8007</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One more to add to above list is the Phenom II X2 565 3.4GHz 80W TDP. Not as exiting but it's priced around $100 and offers the same 6MB L3 Cache.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Memristor</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:11:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8007</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>East17 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8003</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good for them but I really think that they should have released a Quad CORE version @ 4 GHz by now no matter if that would have been only cherry-picked CPUs with availability in the hundreds. It would have been a good shot for AMD's image. The fastest Quad on the market being really FAST. Remember that there are still many idiots around that judge a CPU by its frequency. And 6 CORE CPUs with TURBO @ 4 GHz would have also been a good marketing plot, no matter if that would have to get 140W. Remember that nVIDIA even showed a plastic mockup and they weren't ashamed of it because they knew that even if they convince a few thousand buyers to wait for them, the plastic mockup was a good strategy.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>East17</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:01:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20756-amd-readies-faster-thubans#comment-8003</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
