<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://updates.zdnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[conroe Resources | ZDNet]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, technical articles, and blog posts relating to conroe]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="11" found="11" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Intel  slide not over yet says AMD sales chief]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11474-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=25073&messageID=470775&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Intel  slide not over yet says AMD sales chiefIntel is heading to bankruptcyWith continuing loss of unit share and drastic collapse of pricing, Intel will post massive operating losses in the next 5-7 quarters and eventually BK. Mark my word, folks. This is just simple math. The only way...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:24:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/chipsets.html"><![CDATA[Chipsets]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/sales.html"><![CDATA[sales]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Merom crashing Intel's Core 2 Duo launch event]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=23469&messageID=443229&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Merom crashing Intel's Core 2 Duo launch eventMerom takes Intel TWO generations ahead!Wow. Core Duo (Napa?) already cleans up in the notebook space trouncing Turion in every benchmark, including energy dissipation.With Merom, Intel will be TWO generations ahead. It will have to come down to price for AMD to compete...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:11:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+ia-64.html"><![CDATA[Intel IA-64]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+core+2+duo.html"><![CDATA[Intel Core 2 Duo]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[No surprises from AMD's 'dissatisfying' quarter]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9595-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=23450&messageID=442692&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[No surprises from AMD's 'dissatisfying' quarterI'm going with AMD, too.I expect AMD to not lose market share anytime soon like it happened during last quarter, but that's just a bit so no surprise from AMD. I'm not surprised either.Uh huh, that's why Conroe beats AMD silly.Pfffttttt....I'll take AMD's position over...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/productivity.html"><![CDATA[PRODUCTIVITY]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/microsoft+windows+vista+%2528longhorn%2529.html"><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn)]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Unplugged: AMD's Queen of most things commercial Margaret Lewis]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=23377&messageID=441976&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Unplugged: AMD's Queen of most things commercial Margaret LewisConroe benchmarks DO compare with AMD's bestMargaret is spinning.AMD FX-62 running AM2 platform with a 1333 MHz FSB advantage still got KILLED by a low-end Conroe 2.4 E6600 running 1066 MHz DDR2.Here comments on SPECint are ridiculous.  All the benchmarks are...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:22:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/margaret.html"><![CDATA[Margaret]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/amd+athlon+64.html"><![CDATA[AMD Athlon 64]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/athlon+64+fx62.html"><![CDATA[Athlon 64 FX62]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/amd+athlon.html"><![CDATA[AMD Athlon]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+pentium.html"><![CDATA[Intel Pentium]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Conroe puts Intel back on top]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=23188&messageID=439094&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Conroe puts Intel back on top70% may not be enoughIf the E6400 is competitive with the FX-62 and since it runs cooler as well, the FX-62 would have to be priced below the E6400 to be truly competive.  That's closer to an 80% price drop.  Ouch!Geez!!!You "analysts" are...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:21:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/performance+management.html"><![CDATA[Performance management]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/desktops.html"><![CDATA[Desktops]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fx-62.html"><![CDATA[FX-62]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/socket.html"><![CDATA[socket]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Conroe puts Intel back on top]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=42]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago I blogged a couple of times about the Intel Conroe CPU, and how it seemed that this CPU was going to be At a stroke, every other desktop CPU is, from a performance perspective, now obsoleteable to beat anything that AMD currently had (and are likely...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:52:02 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/cpu.html"><![CDATA[CPU]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Versus Intel, has AMD's day of reckoning arrived?]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=21722&messageID=413037&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Versus Intel, has AMD's day of reckoning arrived?Intel controlled tests show Conroe slower than P4In multi-tasking, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/06/04/intel_conroe_performance_preview/7.html"We found that it was faster than the current flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor in nearly every single-threaded scenario, but there were times where Conroe fell behind in multi-tasking scenarios. One area that...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:15:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/performance+management.html"><![CDATA[Performance management]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/dimms.html"><![CDATA[Dimms]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processor.html"><![CDATA[processor]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fbdimm.html"><![CDATA[FBDIMM]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Intel's Conroe CPU overclocked - phenomenal results!]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=21702&messageID=412799&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Intel's Conroe CPU overclocked - phenomenal results!Yeah, but AMD got hypertransport and other good thingsPerformance, schmerformance - what ya want is hypertransport and the other thingy. Intel only be closing da gap. Sorry, I lost the script and it's sunday.That could be just how AMD respond!... or "We got 4x4"!Not...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:20:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/hypertransport.html"><![CDATA[HyperTransport]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/64-bit.html"><![CDATA[64-bit]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/cpu.html"><![CDATA[CPU]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Intel's Conroe CPU overclocked - phenomenal results!]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=8]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems that AMD might be in for a rough ride.  A very rough ride.Last week AMD announced their 4x4 A stock 2.4GHz Conroe can be overclocked to a whopping 4.0GHz, outperforming everything that AMD currently have, even the FX-62architecture that combined two dual-code CPUs and two dual-GPU graphics...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:38:27 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fx-62.html"><![CDATA[FX-62]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Initial Core benchmarks look dire for AMD]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=18798&messageID=363718&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Initial Core benchmarks look dire for AMDThat would explain the Int-hell FUD I smell.After Skype, I've been casting a cautious eye on the little i.  Now these "benchmarks" seem to cast even greater doubt over i's performance claims, especially when I compare the machines.Note how Int-hell's machine was made...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:49:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/semiconductors.html"><![CDATA[Semiconductors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/now+here.html"><![CDATA[NOW HERE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/int-hell+fud.html"><![CDATA[Int-hell FUD]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advanced+micro+devices+inc..html"><![CDATA[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/doper+duped+anand.html"><![CDATA[Doper Duped Anand]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/woodcrest.html"><![CDATA[Woodcrest]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/chip.html"><![CDATA[chip]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AMD</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AMD,INTC</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[New Intel quad-core chips are really double duo-cores]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9584-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=18659&messageID=361749&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[New Intel quad-core chips are really double duo-coresINTEL is five generations behind, no doubthttp://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/02/amd64-is-five-generations-ahead-of.htmlDesperation setting in...The clueless at Intel still haven't delivered a competitive dual core so they glue two inferior dual chips together and call it a quad core. Only the gullible would believe anything Intel has to say...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:16:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/game+players.html"><![CDATA[Game players]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/semiconductors.html"><![CDATA[Semiconductors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/processors.html"><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/intel+corp..html"><![CDATA[Intel Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/conroe.html"><![CDATA[Conroe]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/quad-core.html"><![CDATA[quad-core]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">INTC</category>
		<category domain="tickers">INTC</category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
