<?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>Atom 2012 Cedar Trail fanless, faster</title>
		<description>Discuss Atom 2012 Cedar Trail fanless, faster</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21090-atom-2012-cedar-trail-fanless-faster</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:04:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/21090/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>DJDestiny says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21090-atom-2012-cedar-trail-fanless-faster#comment-10928</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well , you should remember that a new process requires a new design , and a 45nm design stands a shocking 300mil + it might be even 3b i don't know .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>DJDestiny</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:04:32 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21090-atom-2012-cedar-trail-fanless-faster#comment-10928</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>loadwick says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21090-atom-2012-cedar-trail-fanless-faster#comment-10890</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Intel have no idea in the mobile/tablet market. Yes this chip sounds pretty good but so do all the ARM/nVidia/Samsung/Qualcomm chips in 2012. Why on Earth would Intel make the chip at 32nm if they could make it at 22nm. You would be looking at 30-50% energy saving at 22nm. They need something very special to be taken seriously and this just seems like a nice improvement but not something staggering.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>loadwick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:11:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21090-atom-2012-cedar-trail-fanless-faster#comment-10890</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
