<?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>Bulldozer yields are good</title>
		<description>Discuss Bulldozer yields are good</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:52:31 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/22390/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20778</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So you haven't read the article... have it your way, but don't think you won any argument. Apple are a bunch or cheapasses that always sought out to make expensive devices using the cheapest components... nothing changed to this day. Cyrix made clones so they didn't really had a chance in the x86 space, given that they had to undervalue their products, and VIA bought Cyrix which is why they are even able to make x86.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:37:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20778</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dicobalt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20733</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Apple was using 68000 CPU's and decided to switch to Power because the 68000 wasn't good enough. Just as they switched from Power to x86 because Power wasn't good enough. The 68000 died because Motorola developed the CPU too slowly. The Power CPU died because IBM developed it too slowly. AMD will die if they keep this up. There used to be many more x86 CPU manufacturers, they stopped because they developed their CPUs too slowly. Cyrix didn't need an x86 license and totally failed with performance on their CPUs. VIA still continues to make sickly slow x86 CPU's to this day.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dicobalt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:46:11 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20733</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>pogsnet says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20705</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This article is Bulldozer why is there and Ivy bridge when that is launching next year. Lets problem that next year not now. Wait how about create an Article Fermi product when how does it perform against ATI/AMD HD 7000 when it comes this June too. Or are they making new tweaked versions too? Gladly if I can see one.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pogsnet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:21:04 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20705</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20704</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'll give you an advice: read something http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000_family x86 is not that important in itself and it's not intel that gives it value, but the user base and he amount of applications that exist for it. If Motorola would have beaten Intel back then, x86 would not be alive today. We would have arrived at the same technological level or even better than we are today but on a different path.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:39:08 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20704</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dicobalt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20700</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If it wasn't for Intel there would be no x86 in the first place.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dicobalt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:15:58 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20700</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bert says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20690</link>
			<description><![CDATA[i dont care if bulldozer is faster or slow than ivy bridge, i want one just so i dont have to by intels crap, if it was down to intel we would all be running single cores at one gig.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bert</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:03:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20690</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>leftiszi says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20687</link>
			<description><![CDATA[. . To answer in the same context, I've been doing my reading since the 386DX@40Mhz thank you very much. It seems to me that it is you that should do some reading. It has been already explained to you, that a 20% performance increase, is on a performance per power draw basis. You don't just get 20% from process shrink by magic. What I was saying and you obviously missed, is that AMD will get the same performance per power draw increase from a fabrication shrink as Intel will. The laws of Physics apply to everyone! Unless Intel has Harry Potter in their engineering team, in which case it's bad news for AMD.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>leftiszi</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:29:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20687</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The blue fox says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20685</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Looking at AMD CPU's over the year's i am guessing Bulldozer is going to be slower. But cost less and run cooler.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The blue fox</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:46:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20685</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nubstick says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20683</link>
			<description><![CDATA[20% faster how? It was never stated, could be higher clocks, higher average core count, beefier gpu, larger caches. Who knows, 20% is vague.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nubstick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:35:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20683</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>24_7Warrior_killer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20679</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Winer24_7 What like people take you seriously]]></description>
			<dc:creator>24_7Warrior_killer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:26:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22390-bulldozer-yields-are-good#comment-20679</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
