<?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 thinks Brazos Fusion is a good thing</title>
		<description>Discuss Intel thinks Brazos Fusion is a good thing</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:19:56 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/21074/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10896</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Alright, you are right with your analysis... but you're wrong at the same time. Nobody said anything about you not using official Bobcat data from AMD. Unfortunately, you missed the point and yourma2000's comment... we're talking about Bulldozer. I doubt AMD has made any official numbers regarding its performance so I'm not ready to jump the gun based on rumors.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:54:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10896</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10895</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Putting it to work, while the E-350 is still working, the i3 is already done... never-mind the graphics... I'm all for CPU power and I don't want to consider "playable frame-rates" as an option if I do want to game on a notebook. Do you want to wait or have the work done in manageable time? That's where the disappointment lies and it's not a small gap... actually it's quite a bit and here is where I was expecting something that would at least be close to an i3 not trail behind. In my opinion it's not what I expected and while the thermals of the Bobcat core are good, don't expect the same for the actual i3 competitors from AMD. It's a good entry chip but not an option for serious users of mobile computers.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:49:33 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10895</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10893</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That might be true depending on implementation, real-case scenario differed from what... aham... an AMD rep said. You're deflecting from my point... there's no Atom involved. I said it does better than Atom and I'm comparing the 18W TDP i3-330UM and the E-350 at 18W as well. True, the ide power is better but if you think that a notebook is there to be left not doing anything is a poor excuse for an argument. A laptop has a depletable battery so anyone that uses such a computer, should by all means use it to work on it and not let it sit idle draining power. It's not a desktop. It's not a mentality appropriate to it's function. It's like buying a Ferrari Enzo for the city only to drive it with 30 MPH most of the time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:40:29 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10893</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10853</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've used only official AMD date and information in my analyses, not any rumours.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:59:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10853</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10852</link>
			<description><![CDATA[because its core is only 1/3 the size of older Intel mArchs's (both with or without l2 included) hell its only 1/3 the size of a sandy bridge core made at 32nm. you cant shave of that much die area and expected it to perform on par. http://www.chip-architect.com/news/Llano_vs_SandyBridge_vs_Westmere.jpg http://www.chip-architect.com/news/AMD_Ontario_Bobcat_vs_Intel_Pineview_Atom.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:58:36 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10852</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10851</link>
			<description><![CDATA[the idle power consumption numbers on anandtech has a cautionary note from AMD saying "The system idled around 15W however AMD cautioned me that this number was unnaturally high." http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1039&type=expert&pid=8 9,3 watts at idle, while the atom idled at 16.4. that's close to half, for a power state it will find itself in for the vast majority of the time. the only time it used (slightly) more then a atom+ion was during gaming, with the difference that the bobcat system actually delved playable frame-rates while the atom managed only 1/6 of that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:50:37 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10851</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Blizzard says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10837</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hmm.... I probably for the first time see such affirmation - "Intel thinks Brazos Fusion is a good thing" Its nice - hard efforts from AMD, it deserves that just don't deflect from the flow]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Blizzard</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:53:46 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10837</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10834</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What I mean is that performance wise I expected more from a new micro-architecture such as Bobcat. It did better than Atom, as it was expected but it's still behind older mArchs from Intel. At least they got the power usage under control which sucked on Danube/Nile/older. So the point still stands... we need to see actual numbers before we praise BD. BTW That's what fanboys don't do, and even if I favor AMD for my reasons I don't want to be like those that blindly follow rumors.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:11:36 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10834</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10833</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Not less, but about as much power while being faster than Atom... "AMD is confident we will see Brazos based systems deliver well beyond 6 hours of battery life." http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked/1 I never said it wasn't a win... actually it is! Just that expectations were set too high and the win was just a plain win, not an exceptional win, meaning performing at the TDP it does while taking on i3's and Pentiums. If you look at the test, it doesn't touch any of those two. P4 660 is full 2 min. faster when raring, a more used app then any of the other tested, meaning that while the more hungry P4 is done, E350 is still working.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:05:55 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10833</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10832</link>
			<description><![CDATA[roughly the same power usage? which review did you look at? it used less power then a atom, which is much lower then the CULV parts. it was even HALF that of the atom+ion platform at idle. much lower cost then the CULV, lower power use then the Atom, and almost the performance of the CULV parts. sounds like a win to me.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:03:34 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21074-intel-thinks-brazos-fusion-is-a-good-thing#comment-10832</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
