<?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>Medfield failure is not an option for Intel</title>
		<description>Discuss Medfield failure is not an option for Intel</description>
		<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:00:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/25328/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>fteoath64 says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36373</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Intel's part probably looks well on paper. In silicon. it will have to do real 2X cpu power and at least match gpu power while giving same or better battery life. Can it be done by Q2-2012 ?. Not a chance!. It will be beaten in gpu for sure and battery life will be about 50-60% of the ARM equivalent. Its price point way higher as well. It is like climbing Everest with a donkey!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fteoath64</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:18:33 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36373</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jay says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36363</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Performance really isn't the issue, pretty certain it will give 2x more performance than ARM chips but if it gives 3/4th the battery life of ARM chips it'll be mission accomplished. How will the graphics part stack up though? iPhone4S, Galaxy SII have really nice graphic games will Intel match ARM in graphics too? Tough one to answer!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36363</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dicobalt says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36356</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree failure is not an option in the phone/tablet markets. I just want to see the look on the faces of everyone who said x86 can't run at low power lol]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dicobalt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:30:22 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36356</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>SydneyBlue120d says:</title>
			<link>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36327</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If Intel can beat in every aspect TI OMAP5430, Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 MSM8960 and Samsung Exynos 5250 this could be interesting but I'm not sold on the idea they can do it, at least with this generation...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>SydneyBlue120d</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:14:13 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://fudzilla.com/home/item/25328-medfield-failure-is-not-an-option-for-intel#comment-36327</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
