<?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 17W TDP Celeron in Q1 12</title>
		<description>Discuss New 17W TDP Celeron in Q1 12</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:44:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/24422/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>youserzero says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32765</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Quite right I missread the chips. I suppose the SU2300 doesn't do too bad considering it costs 2-3 times as much as the E350.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>youserzero</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:57:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32765</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>maroon1 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32717</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Decembermouse, I didn't mean to insult you. However, what I was trying to say that you should do some research before you speak and post incorrect information. I may I have said that in impolite way. I do apologize. However, you arguments were really stupid (sorry for saying that). Specially this "1.65GHz" argument. As if higher GHz means superior performance when you compare two difference CPU architecture. This as stupid as someone saying that 1+1=3 Last but not least, you claimed that I only picked that part that I can argue against. You are wrong. I picked that part that I disagree with you.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>maroon1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:50:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32717</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>maroon1 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32714</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You are arguing against something that I NEVER SAID. Anyone can do that. Why not try to argue against things that I said ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>maroon1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:35:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32714</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>youserzero says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32699</link>
			<description><![CDATA[BWAHAHAHA reading comprehension FAIL! You just proved atom sucks because you read the benchmarks backwards :) Atom takes 11:48 to encode the same mp3 an e350 can do in 1:47, which is a serious ass kicking. Actually, every single benmark on that page atom loses to the e350.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>youserzero</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:52:18 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32699</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Decembermouse says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32673</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In any case, your response is not of sufficient quality or thoroughness to allow you to level this kind of insult against me. What you have done here is akin to bringing a souped-up Honda Civic and a big ego to an F1 race. Your need to throw out all these insults reflects poorly on you, and you need to grow up. For your own sake, give it a rest. I'm glad there are still people here who can rationally discuss things instead of throwing out insults in an attempt to gain status. I would respect the maturity in your post, even if we were to disagree.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Decembermouse</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:06:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32673</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Decembermouse says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32672</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Wow, you're not very nice. Please be more polite on this forum and treat others with the same respect we afford you. You read my original post and decided to ignore the points you couldn't argue against, instead trying to pick apart what you could. Pretty transparent trolling. In the future, if you'd like to participate in a mature and balanced way in the future, please first read and think about a post in its entirety before allowing yourself to display poor anger management and impulse control. You're not going to get anyone's respect acting like this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Decembermouse</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:59:28 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32672</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fteoath64 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32632</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This chip might look like an Atom replacement considering performance bump but the price point completely screws it. Not at $134, it has got to get below $50 ... What are the target devices for this chip anyway ?.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fteoath64</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:56:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32632</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>maroon1 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32626</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I read his post properly. He actually stated that he would get E-450 over Celeron 867, and the reasons he gave is that E-450 is 1.65GHz and TDP includes CPU, GPU, and NB. None of those are valid reason. And I explained that in my previous comments]]></description>
			<dc:creator>maroon1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:32:59 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32626</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>pchacker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32613</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Actually if you read closely you will see decembermouse stated that you have to add the "chipset" tdp to the celeron. Then in a separate statement said that the e450 includes the cpu,gpu and nb. Read a bit first and stop being so aggressive, its people like you who start the huge fanboy wars and such]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pchacker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 03:14:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32613</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>maroon1 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32597</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Even Celeron SU2300 (1.2GHz CPU based on old penryn architecture) beats E-350 (1.6GHz) in all CPU benchmarks Here is a proof for this http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-e350m1-amd-brazos-zacate-apu,2840-11.html Do you think E-350/E-450 is going to have any chance against modern Celeron 867 which is based on modern Sandy-bridge architecture ? Unfortunately, We still have ignorant people (like Decembermouse) who think more GHz = better performance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>maroon1</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:22:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24422-new-17w-tdp-celeron-in-q1-12#comment-32597</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
