<?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 preps Bulldozer-based Phenoms </title>
		<description>Discuss AMD preps Bulldozer-based Phenoms </description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 07:20:58 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/25335/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36436</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Agreed. Though my point is AMD needs to disasochiate Bulldozer with Phenom II. They are both different designs and if AMD does indead release Bulldozer based Phenom's then AMD will get hurt by this IMO.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:51:09 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36436</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36435</link>
			<description><![CDATA[And I blame AMD's Upper Management for the screw ups. One guy thought AMD could ride with the K8 design for as long as possible while Intel in the background was developing the Conroe design (Pentium 3) but at the same time throwing out hot, power hungry Pentium 4's. Yes AMD was caught with there panties down.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:49:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36435</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>razorleaf says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36423</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Considering running all 8 treads, for example virtual OS for tablet pc, when there is more than one user on board, it is a better CPU. When you run 8 aplications at once it also is, so it needs high frequency ;-) . Therefore beeing as fast as 2500k bulldozer has thease unique capabilities.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>razorleaf</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:25:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36423</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chris says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36415</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree for phenom brand which was awful but finally phenom II's were not that bad, not designed to beat socket 1366 core i7's though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:13:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36415</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>saneblane says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36399</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When people are more hopeful about phenom than FX,that's when you know why some people at Amd got fired. They brought back FX and shot it right in the head.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>saneblane</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:33:07 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36399</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dicobalt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36391</link>
			<description><![CDATA[At no point was the Pentium 4 on average faster than an Athlon64. It had very wide performance variations doing different tasks. The only place the P4 ever consistently outpaced Intel was audio/video encoding where the data was highly predictable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dicobalt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:07:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36391</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36372</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Intel released Hyper-threading with the P4 before having OS support, and when it got it via a patch, it was a beast and took the lead back from AMD without improving IPC. AMD introduced the IMC and it was great. HTT not so much because it never got saturated. It would have been fine at 800MHz vs 2000MHz. Intel puts brand new designs on brand new manufacturing processes every Tick. AMD simply effed up. They've been effin up ever since Hyper-Threading was introduced.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:54:12 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36372</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jurassic1024 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36371</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For the people that are looking for neither low nor high end. Also it saves AMD from junking chips that don't pass as FX chips. No different than what we've seen for YEARS. Using the old Phenom name on next gen chips is bad, having a middle tier is not. PS, Stay away from leaked slides.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jurassic1024</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:42:13 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36371</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36365</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great points Jay, MS announced a 2-Part Patch for Bulldozer based CPU's for Windows 7 for Q1 2012. I give AMD a pat in the back but also a bitch slap up-side-the head for Bulldozer's unique innovation. AMD once again pushing innovation to its limits and taking a huge risk by putting a Brand New Design onto a Brand New Manufacturing process. I won't put total blame on software, but on the 32nm HKMG Process which GlobF is having issues with. In Q3 2012, Piledriver should be upwards from 25% performance boost over today's Bulldozer which means GlobF would have fixed all issues with the 32nm process and AMD would have put enough tweaking within its new design. Anyhow BAD MOVE AMD if they plan on re-releasing the Phenom II branded name. Let it die and never look back.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:45:02 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36365</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jay says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36362</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well I agree with you there 100% but what's the point of this innovation when the software isn't there to use it? PC's are not like consoles where developers will pounce to write code for a new architecture ASAP. Unless AMD makes its own games/software. You're not going to keep a BD for 5 years until software catches up by then AMD & Intel both will release better performing chips be it on the same architechture. MS isn't bothered about a patch for win7 coz they're in win8 mode & by the time win8 comes out Piledriver/Ivy Bridge will be there. As per your point you seem very happy & content you got a Ferrari Enzo But you didn't get the wheels & gas to go with it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:16:41 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/25335-amd-preps-bulldozer-based-phenoms#comment-36362</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
