<?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>Microsoft needs Arm</title>
		<description>Discuss Microsoft needs Arm</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 00:34:07 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/21481/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>DJDestiny says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13654</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well , bobcat has another leg up , it is actually emphasizing power usage over pure performance , but its performance at the same TDP , wipes the floor with the Atom , as the bobcat is a new structure , lets see how the 2nd gen competes with the 2nd gen atom , 1st gen bobcat vs 1st gen atom , bobcat totally brings down the roofs .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>DJDestiny</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:57:20 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13654</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13653</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the same time, the SB took over the logic of the 3rd party chips, IDE/SATA, sound, network, USB, FW, SuperIO etc. It won't be long until x86 CPU's will become SoC's in their own right and the more they are integrated the better the power control will be, and the lower the gap that ARM has made between it and x86. Another reason ARM has a leg up is because the battery industry is dragging its feet with the same old technology. But that won't be the case for long as just last year I've read a few articles that indicated several new approaches at storing a lot more energy in the same package size, that will come in the next years and x86 on ultra portables will have a decent up time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:46:33 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13653</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13652</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@jurassic, wrong! Take a look at the development of the x86 platform: We had CPU + chipset + 3rd party chips + GPU. The CPU, GPU, SB and memory banks were connected to the NB, while the 3p chips to the SB. AMD took the memory controller out of the NB and put it on the CPU, so did Intel later on. Intel took most of the NB logic and put it on the CPU, removing the need for a chipset, the Controller Hub was born, basically the SB is alone with 3p chips. The memory banks, GPU and CH connect to the CPU now. AMD took the GPU and NB logic and put it on the CPU with added programability, the APU was born and they also adopted a CH. The memory banks, discreet GPU and CH connect to the CPU.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:33:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13652</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>strauss1991 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13651</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ford GT isn't a supercar?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>strauss1991</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:40:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13651</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dicobalt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13650</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The real question: Will Nvidia be able to make an ARM chip that can compete with Intel and AMD on price/performance? It will never happen. Even if it does happen the application software will still be incompatible. You also can't do virtualization of x86 instructions on an ARM chip. It will never happen. Nvidia only wants to badger Intel into getting an x86 license. Nvidia hope this threat of competition will get them that license. Everything Jen-Hsun Huang does recently is to scare Intel into issuing an x86 license. They want Intel to feel like x86 is doomed to death without Nvidia. If ARM was really that great Nvidia would have sought to build an ARM chip first. Instead, Nvidia complains and moans for years about not having an x86 license.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dicobalt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:31:50 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13650</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13649</link>
			<description><![CDATA[you guys need to stick with desktop x86 CPU's, because anything non-x86 is out of your league. it's plain as day that you know nothing. and go google what a market segment is. next you'll be saying Kia needs to build a supercar to compete as a car company.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:27:24 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13649</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13648</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bobcat? lol ARM will take over what?! there has to be something to take first. Intel and AMD aren't in the SoC business ffs. same reason Ford doesn't compete in the supercar market. it's not what they do.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:22:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13648</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13647</link>
			<description><![CDATA[they are called markets for a reason. unless you think Tegra 2 is gonna threaten the desktop... btw, have you seen the size of a SoC?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:15:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13647</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13646</link>
			<description><![CDATA[yea, cuz everyone that was running Core 2's or Phenoms a couple years ago are running Atom on the desktop now right?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:14:37 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13646</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13624</link>
			<description><![CDATA[gamoniac and GhostOfSparta, you're both implying that AMD and Intel will just stand still and let ARM take over... that's naive! The only advantage ARM has is low power usage... that advantage will also be available on the x86 chips sooner or later with the added benefit of higher processing power. Bobcat is only the beginning, there will be even lower powered chips coming in the next years.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:22:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/21481-microsoft-needs-arm#comment-13624</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
