<?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 falls short with Bulldozer</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD falls short with Bulldozer</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:09:44 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/24435/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>MortenA says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-33256</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWWbr6qKM0&feature=related - funny video topic related]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MortenA</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:50:16 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-33256</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32957</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bulldozer is more for Server/Workstation. Don't know what AMD was thinking, but this is not a Desktop CPU. That said, I give AMD 5*****'s for Pure Innovation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:53:56 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32957</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ramcoza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32762</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If this is the case, why couldn't they sent those codes before win 7 release or even Win7 sp1? You knw how long they were working with this Bulldozer.. This is all about nothing. The fact is Bulldozer is out and this is what you get now. Don't predict the future, just talk about present. Are you going to wait for another year again? Funny!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ramcoza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:12:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32762</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>zeropercenthotgas says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32761</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why would they? Its not like they got anything else CPU wise to sell. Now, radeon hd is another story...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>zeropercenthotgas</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:00:19 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32761</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The HavoX says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32760</link>
			<description><![CDATA[AMD reminds me of Dr. Wily for one reason... They have yet to admit defeat. :D]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The HavoX</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:37:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32760</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32759</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For Christ's sake, grow up. If the situation was reversed, AMD would be just as domineering and monopolistic as intel. AMD has failed to build and market products that allow them this level of dominance. That's the only thing that sets them apart from intel. A corporation exists only to create profits for its shareholders. Not to do favors to you. Intel is just better at it than AMD.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:07:32 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32759</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>stoneeh says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32758</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I second that notion. Well actually, AMD can fail however hard they want, I will still buy them. Just can't get around to buying an Intel, might just as well grew a Hitler moustache, slip into an authentic SS uniform and jack off in front of an elementary school; morally both actions would amount to the same.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>stoneeh</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:46:38 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32758</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32752</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hate to say it, but I told you so. I like how all the AMD fanboys have gone from orgasmic jubilation nine months ago to "it's not that bad" today. Twice the transistor budget and lower performance is bad. Imagine if nVidia had an 8 billion transistor GPU that was significantly slower than a 4 billion transistor GPU from AMD in just about everything. People would be lambasting it as a turd and rightfully so. I'm not completely ready to write off Bulldozer and my AMD stock, I'll wait to see how it does with server workloads. I'm not going to be holding my breath.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:45:14 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32752</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nickack says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32747</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Same here but i might get a 990FX just for some SLI fun :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>nickack</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:38:59 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32747</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>saneblane says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32746</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have never seen a company shoot itself in it's own foot like this. If they had called it what it is a "quad" core, they could have at least right it off as a bad try at hyper-threading. What a shame and disgrace spit in your hand and hold your face, Calling it an 8 core was just simplifying a very complex processor, the engineers needs to be fired and the Marketing department should be behind them, Amd needs a restructuring that the CEO alone can't fix.Their are lots of very talented people out of jobs Amd, fire and hire. This is shameful, MY I5 2500 is on it's way Amd, Thank you come again.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>saneblane</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:45:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer#comment-32746</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
