<?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>AMD introduces fastest quad-core</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD introduces fastest quad-core</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 14:16:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/22601/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>reecem27 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-22005</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dude... expand your technology pool. There was plenty of mainboards that'd run ye olde P4's of 400/533 and 800 FSB. You may need a jumper placement or BIOS update, but they definately exist(ed). Case in point is Gigabyte's GA-8IG1000 series (865G chipset).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>reecem27</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 02:49:51 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-22005</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-22000</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No, you are just trying to twist the outcome of your answers. You've put it clear enough, "Oh the irony", by which you mean it's ironic that people complain about intel's socket scheme, but now AMD has to make the same decision. Well, no again, BD is well compatible with AM3+ older mainboard designs, which by the price they have are barely 5€ to 10€ more costly than the AM3 versions, hardly anything to complain about given that newer products will be more expensive at launch. There are options. Some can chose cheaper that work well enough solutions and others can go for the enthusiast segment. Don't believe for an instance that all intel buyers go for sandy's top notch.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 23:22:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-22000</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>yourma2000 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21997</link>
			<description><![CDATA[AMD, just release a 4Ghz model and stop farting about]]></description>
			<dc:creator>yourma2000</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 22:41:26 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21997</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The blue fox says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21995</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why am i getting down votes for saying that it's not hard to OC intel chips. I had that Problem. The board you are using must have the 4 pin CPU power connector in order to run. that chip. Other then that if it's the proper socket it worked. But i will agree that intel's socket switching is getting out of hand. I under stand why they switched from LGA 775 to 1366 because the memory controller is now on the CPU. But 1156, 1155, 2011? Why]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The blue fox</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 22:20:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21995</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boomstick777 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21988</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yeah how dare Intel offer better performance than any of AMD chips for such a low price, screw em ey? :/ Well im happy with my 2600k and P67, cost me less than my old phenom II 1055t and 890GX setup cost when I bought it and peformance is so much better, gained around 50- 60fps in most games, old 1055t at 4.2GHZ was limiting my graphics card (HD 6970 2gb). My PC boots much quicker and is much more responsive, also I can run my memory at its top speed 2000mhz which I couldn't even get 1600mhz stable on my 890gx rig. Sandybridge is amazing value for performance/price. AMD have nothing right now, they need Bulldozer asap..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boomstick777</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 19:24:31 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21988</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fuadzilla says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21986</link>
			<description><![CDATA[screw intel's greedy ass.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fuadzilla</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 18:40:29 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21986</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Medallish says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21970</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Phenom II was an architectual improvement, there are motherboards from Asus that is supposedly compatible with Bulldozer, and let's not forget that before that Athlon X2's were working on same socket as Phenom. Intel could, but is probably trying to squeeze extra profits by not doing so, which is fine I guess, however where I'd have a problem is with Intels splitting up the sockets, LGA775 was good enough for high and low end, why must you have so many sockets for the I series? This is a thing AMD seems to always have been conistent on.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Medallish</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 16:04:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21970</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boomstick777 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21966</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes thats becausce its the first CPU from AMD in 4 years thats brings any architectural improvements. Which is kind of my point! Lol, Intel have been bringing architectural improvements since core 2 duo and unfortunately that does require new socket but also gives more power/features.. AMD used to offer good value (bang for buck) in low to mid end CPU's but with 2500k/2600k Intel is killing them at bang for buck now aswell. AMD need Bulldozer asap..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boomstick777</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 15:15:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21966</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21963</link>
			<description><![CDATA[true, but its the first non-forward compatible socket change at AMD in 4 years, as opposed to intel who has 4 to 5 different sockets in active circulation at the same time. face it, intels sockets are a right mess at the moment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 14:56:02 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21963</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Boomstick777 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21960</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't mind changing my motherboard for a new Intel CPU as it brings actual performance increase. I believe to use the new Bulldozer cpu's features, power state, etc that you will need a new motherboard also. Oh the irony..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Boomstick777</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 14:32:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22601-amd-introduces-fastest-quad-core#comment-21960</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
