<?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>New 32nm Sandy Bridge Celerons in Q4 2011</title>
		<description>Discuss New 32nm Sandy Bridge Celerons in Q4 2011</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:38:47 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/24320/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Raider says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-33511</link>
			<description><![CDATA[TDP of celerons is not enough to showoff, if celeron based CPU uses full power to start browser taking 10 seconds i would like more an AMD 65W CPU starting browser in 5s. Second, there must be a GPU in platform for smooth BANERS animation and FLASH and from what i know intel doesn't have any proper GPU to cut out CPU power-hungry calculations. Think people !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Raider</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:27:48 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-33511</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>sss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32222</link>
			<description><![CDATA[R.I.P to the following: 1.dan+mr.sucker=amdfagbots (Terminated) 2.Warrior24_7 (Defeated) 3.bro_fist (Eliminated) :D :D :D :P :P :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>sss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:36:19 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32222</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>spp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32219</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Celeron and sempron both are just socket caps at best :zzz .............]]></description>
			<dc:creator>spp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:25:29 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32219</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Cartman says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32211</link>
			<description><![CDATA[well it can have good FPS but i would NEVER buy that damn thing only cuz name is still Celeron It reminds me on dark times with Celeron on socket 478 i had like four of them. I never could get money to buy Pentium 4 :), then i bought Athlon 64 later and felt like i had a rocket.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Cartman</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 06:59:06 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32211</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>maroon1 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32160</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Really ? Obviously you never saw any benchmarks for these SB-based celerons Celeron G540 is much faster than even Athlon II X2 250 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g540-g440.html Retire what ?!! "Celeron" is just a name. Those newer celerons are based on sandy-bridge. The difference is that celeron has less features and lower L3 cache when compared to i3 21xx.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>maroon1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:11:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32160</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nt300 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32139</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oh, boy, eough with the Celeron. Even AMD's Sempron is better than these crapy Celerons... Retire the bloody thing Intel and come out with something better...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>nt300</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:24:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24320-new-32nm-sandy-bridge-celerons-in-q4-2011#comment-32139</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
