<?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 plans aggressive Sandy Bridge transition</title>
		<description>Discuss Intel plans aggressive Sandy Bridge transition</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:49:16 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20774/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-9466</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The people who'd want an 45nm Nehalem are people that want or need a really fast processor. Sure, they're rated at 130W TDP but I guarantee you they (on average) draw less power than any comparable AMD processor. Not that there really are any comparable AMD processors. AMD hasn't made a processor worth purchasing since the S939 days. Intel can charge more because they're faster. Everyone buying servers these days apparently disagrees with you. The original Nehalem chips revived the server racket in 2009 and the Westmere-EP and Nehalem-EX processors are outselling Opteron 6100s by a huge margin. Why? Because they're better.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:54:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-9466</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>East17 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8438</link>
			<description><![CDATA[And I plan to agressively NOT buy any of INTEL's products :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>East17</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:33:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8438</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>genetix says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8431</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's rather funny marketing here since AMD started dropping the news up. Intel doesn't have a single core on market worth buying in their price range. Only even close worth mentioning are XEON E5630-E5640 and even those are way too expensive to have and multiplier is still too low for those prices. Not to even consider I7-970/980X. Who the hell wants an 45nm I7-920-950 fry pan on their desktop with new bad stepping. So, by just looking these anyone can make conclusion to buy AMD straight up as INTEL doesn't seem to have even proper cores on twice the cost to offer for their customers. Why would Intel Sandy Bridge be any different ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>genetix</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:06:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8431</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Shurik_tambourine says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8427</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@nele you do have a point there sorry about the post... was in a bad mood then :-|]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Shurik_tambourine</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:46:36 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8427</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8377</link>
			<description><![CDATA[AMD's Bulldozser is a module design, which means they can use it in mid-end as well as high-end... but catching up, there's not much to catch up too, maybe in price. Sure, intel has a really fast chip, thanks to their numerous R&D teams and fabs, and even so AMD still manages to innovate and hopefully they'll keep compatibility alive as they did with AM2->AM3. As for Fusion, there won't be Bulldozer Fusion for a year if not more, so I get the 45nm node point, but what if they needed better steppings to come out with a good product from the start to get marketshare so they delayed?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:15:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8377</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8364</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No one really knows much about the replacement for LGA-1366. Everyone assumed LGA-2011 but there is also LGA-1356 floating around. As for GloFo dropping 32nm for 28nm, that's the bulk node used for graphics. AMD processors ship on silicon-on-insulator and will be 32nm.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:05:31 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8364</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>arclight says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8346</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We don't know that for a fact. I would remain cautious untill i see real benchmarks of Buldozer highend desktop CPUs. And they will be released when? It will be though for AMD to catch up in the high end segment when they keep delaying CPUs based on new arhitectures. I am hoping AMD learns from their competition and start showing up to the fight like they do with their graphics cards. I mean why couldn't we get a bastardized Buldozer based CPU on 45 nm? Would it have been really that impossible? I think not, my guess is that they wanted really bad to integrate the GPU even in their highend parts and failed on 45nm node. My 2 cents.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>arclight</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:59:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8346</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>noypogs16 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8334</link>
			<description><![CDATA[no to sandy bridge... graphics sucks but yes to fusion and bulldozer, ati, and nvidia]]></description>
			<dc:creator>noypogs16</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:26:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8334</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nele says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8262</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, even if Bulldozer manages to be a huge success, it will be targeted at the high end market for the better part of next year, so that's a relatively low market share... Fusion cores will probably be able to compete with some Sandy parts, but i doubt AMD will manage to cover the entire range with competitive products. However, AMD will probably offer much better value for money and superior graphics. As for my alleged bias, I haven't bought a single Intel desktop CPU since 2000, not because I'm a fanboy but because AMD usually delivers better value for money. However, I've never bought an AMD-based notebook. ;-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>nele</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:43:29 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8262</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>loadwick says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8260</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The last thing Intel said about Ivy Bridge is that its still on track for 2H 2011 so Intel has be aggressive! Any more news on the proper Sandy Bridge chips, LGA-2011? Bulldozer is looking nice and i truly hope its another Athlon64 or Opteron. Could someone confirm to me that is it going to be 28nm? Some people are saying 32nm but i thought GF ditched 32nm for 28nm???]]></description>
			<dc:creator>loadwick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:33:21 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/20774-intel-plans-aggressive-sandy-bridge-transition#comment-8260</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
