<?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 officially comments Cayman delay</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD officially comments Cayman delay</description>
		<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 03:28:03 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/20836/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Nerdmaster says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9139</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So many comments... We need a new article :roll:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nerdmaster</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:50:42 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9139</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>loadwick says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9137</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ quantos & Nerdmaster You are absolutly right, thit is the ONLY reason nVidia called their new chip GTX580 and not GTX485, to win sales from people who's knowledge extends as far as 'A bigger number must be better'! I am sure you can still buy 5870's but what i meant is i can't see who/why people will buy them when the 6870 is cheaper, cooler, quieter, much lower TDP and the performance is pretty close esp when you take into account 1GHz+ overclocks. If you want faster the uneducated buyer might not even know of the 6970 so thinks his only option is the 580 but a paper launch just lets everyone know what to expect. It shouldn't effect 6870 sales as its a totally different price bracket and if it does it can only be good for AMD as they are getting $400-500 instead of $250-300.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>loadwick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:06:55 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9137</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nerdmaster says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9133</link>
			<description><![CDATA[5870 can be bought right now at newegg with 300 bucks. It said that it will be even cheaper in the following weeks. (280-250$) So I guess they finally want to get rid of 58xx cards.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nerdmaster</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:45:07 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9133</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Quantos says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9131</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Actually that brings up a point. I think people on Fudzilla are at the very least more than the typical customer when it comes to computer parts, which maybe clouds a bit our view (I'm as guilty as anyone)of most people's buying habits. Of course, most people probably don't buy random computer parts, they mostly either have the knowledge to build from scratch, or they buy pre-built. However, since GPUs are probably one of the most "customer friendly" computer part (in that they're advertised a lot and are easy to install), I believe there may be more low-knowledge people buying this than we might think. Assuming that, my point here is that AMD could be counting on those people to buy 58xx as Christmas discounts... you know the high power high value product that's just not new.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Quantos</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:21:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9131</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>loadwick says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9127</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Quantos / Andre Lapointe I guess that was aimed at me as i have been the most vocal on this. I am certainly not trying to say it with any certainty, far from it, but in terms of 'killing AMDs sales' i don't think it would at all. I can't see anyone buying 58xx now, its either 68xx or high-end. The 6970 is high end, the only high end options atm is 5970 or 580. If anyone was going to buy a 5970 they would have by now which just leaves you with the 580. All i am saying is that if someone had $500 bucks they wanted to spend now then possibly unless they have been shown that the 6970 is worth waiting for people might be giving their money to nVidia. Although Bl0bb3er did point out that the GTX580 doesn’t seem to be sold out anywhere so maybe people are waiting.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>loadwick</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:52:09 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9127</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Quantos says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9125</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why do people say that if the 69xx were any good, AMD would have leaked something by now? What gives anyone such insight that they're capable of saying this with any certainty? For all we know, maybe the 69xx are SO good that it would make all existing 58xx rot on the shelves the moment they are released. From a business point of view, releasing info about your next, "current-own-product-killing" card is not very good. They definitely want to sell those 58xxs. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the 69xx do not meet expectations, in which case the most logical step for AMD would be to rework their pricing, not the cards. My point is,the best move anyone can do right now is wait. December 13th is only a month away.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Quantos</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:51:39 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9125</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AndromedaB says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9123</link>
			<description><![CDATA[whats your point here? everyone knows that amd chose (or was forced) to stick with the traditional gpu arch (high number simple processors) but thats how gpus should be for games. nv only changed because of larrabee(low number complex). it felt threatened so it took a risk and went smack between them,]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AndromedaB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:28:05 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9123</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AndromedaB says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9122</link>
			<description><![CDATA[its my guess that 6950 is going to shoot for the gap between the 480 and the 460 (470,closer to 480 ofc) is minus the noise/heat/tdp that came with fermi. i also think that the 6970 will be roughly the same or slightly slower than the 580 but maybe better price/tdp wise. eyefinity is a huge plus though i still find it quite sad how there are no major games that use tessellation yet :sigh:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AndromedaB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:16:47 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9122</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Warrior24_7 says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9120</link>
			<description><![CDATA[First of all, you're caught up in the number of Stream Processors a card has vice what they can do. Nvidia's Cuda Cores and AMD's Stream Processors are different, that I do know. Nvidia uses "less" SPs than AMD, yet their cards are faster. In order for AMD to achieve parity then they must use more stream processors. This is whats happening right now with Cayman. How are they different? Don't know, somebody else can explain it. But its the truth]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Warrior24_7</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:07:45 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9120</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nerdmaster says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9117</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also there are rumors about a 6890 with 1280 sps and 920MHz (full Barts to counter 560 384 sps). Then 6890 will be on par with 470 and 460 super overclocked editions at 900MHz. So in this case 6950 has to be faster so it will be on par or faster than a 480! That will put 6970 on par or faster than 580...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nerdmaster</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:01:06 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/20836-amd-officially-comments-cayman-delay#comment-9117</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
