<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Technology for Mortals &#187; Benchmarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.formortals.com/category/news/benchmarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.formortals.com</link>
	<description>Because technology isn&#039;t just for geeks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:16:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Solid State PC</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/the-solid-state-pc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/the-solid-state-pc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Charles N. Burns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chassis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Graphics cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HTPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherboards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NVIDIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=1461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A silent PC is one that makes absolutely no noise, and by necessity has no moving parts (including fans). Such systems usually use very low-end hardware limited to trivial tasks such as running a cash register. The system introduced today, a Solid-State PC (SSPC) is a powerful quad-core i5 PC which runs most software faster than the majority of modern PCs, yet uses [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/the-solid-state-pc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two AMD Shanghai processors beaten by a single Intel i7-965</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/two-amd-shanghai-processors-beaten-by-a-single-intel-i7-965/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/two-amd-shanghai-processors-beaten-by-a-single-intel-i7-965/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AMD had much to celebration last week as they managed to beat Intel&#8217;s Nehalem-EP to the mainstream two-socket server market with Shanghai.  AMD took a lead in SPECjbb, SPECweb, SPECfp, and Virtualization Nested Paging for the server market and it looked like they might have had 2 months of breathing room to before Nehalem-EP arrives [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/two-amd-shanghai-processors-beaten-by-a-single-intel-i7-965/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>68</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The facts about AMD&#8217;s ACP power rating</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/the-facts-about-amds-acp-power-rating/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/the-facts-about-amds-acp-power-rating/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One issue that I&#8217;m frequently asked about is AMD&#8217;s alternative energy efficiency rating called Average CPU Power (ACP).  AMD created this new standard on its own last year and despite controversy, they&#8217;ve managed to get the media to accept this new definition of energy efficiency.  AMD has told the press that AMD&#8217;s ACP rating is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/the-facts-about-amds-acp-power-rating/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AMD Shanghai 45nm launch &#8211; Server benchmarks roundup</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/amd-shanghai-45nm-launch-server-benchmarks-roundup/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/amd-shanghai-45nm-launch-server-benchmarks-roundup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtualization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AMD launched its 45nm Shanghai processors today for the server market ahead of Intel&#8217;s Nehalem processor launch.&#160; AMD lists a series of benchmarks here but they omit many of the better results from Intel.&#160; To get the full official results, here are the benchmarks based on the best scores available from AMD and Intel as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/amd-shanghai-45nm-launch-server-benchmarks-roundup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SAP benchmarks for AMD Shanghai released</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/sap-benchmarks-for-amd-shanghai-released/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/sap-benchmarks-for-amd-shanghai-released/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just came across some certified SAP server benchmarks for the soon to be launched AMD 45nm Shanghai processor in comparison to some Intel Tigerton 65nm processor and Intel Dunnington 45nm processor. System CPU Cores Sockets Clock Score HP ProLiant DL785 G5 Opteron 8384 4 8 2.7 GHz 7010 IBM System x3950 M2 Xeon X7350 4 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/sap-benchmarks-for-amd-shanghai-released/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AMD submits suboptimal SPECpower benchmarks for Intel</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/amd-submits-suboptimal-specpower-benchmarks-for-intel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/amd-submits-suboptimal-specpower-benchmarks-for-intel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 09:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AMD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Performance benchmarks are the equivalent of the Indianapolis 500 for the computer industry, if not more important.  Rarely are the top performance numbers attainable in the real world, but winning is a critical symbolic victory in the war of perception.  The winner of the benchmarks will be perceived to have a technological lead across their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/amd-submits-suboptimal-specpower-benchmarks-for-intel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tomshardware botches Intel Atom energy efficiency tests badly</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-botches-intel-atom-energy-efficiency-tests-badly/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-botches-intel-atom-energy-efficiency-tests-badly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Via]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=84</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Update 8/20/2008 &#8211; I need to fix my mistake because I quoted some initial informal numbers from Jack that didn&#8217;t include the 3.5&#8243; HDD or dual-threaded tests.  Now that the I have his full data set, I&#8217;m need to make some corrections.  I apologize for my mistake and I will fix it below, but my insistance that Tomshardware is off [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-botches-intel-atom-energy-efficiency-tests-badly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tomshardware redeems themselves with new flash versus hard drive energy efficiency tests</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-redeems-themselves-with-new-flash-versus-hard-drive-energy-efficiency-tests/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-redeems-themselves-with-new-flash-versus-hard-drive-energy-efficiency-tests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The last time Tomshardware posted an article on SSD Flash drives versus HDD Hard Drive power consumption, I gave them a well deserved &#8220;F&#8221;.&#160; They had&#160;botched the analysis badly and drew incorrect hypothesis because they didn&#8217;t test their theories and it turned out that their theories were wrong.&#160; But to be fair to Tomshardware, they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/tomshardware-redeems-themselves-with-new-flash-versus-hard-drive-energy-efficiency-tests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Horrible analysis claims flash drives consume more power</title>
		<link>http://www.formortals.com/horrible-analysis-claims-flash-drives-consume-more-power/</link>
		<comments>http://www.formortals.com/horrible-analysis-claims-flash-drives-consume-more-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George Ou</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Benchmarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.formortals.com/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; Update 7/14/2008 -&#160;Tomshardware redeems themselves with new flash versus hard drive energy efficiency testsLots of people are talking about Tomshardware&#8217;s latest claim that SSD (Solid State Disk) flash drives are less energy efficient than a conventional laptop hard drive.&#160; The problem is that the analysis is fundamentally shoddy.Tomshardware&#8217;s Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos claims [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.formortals.com/horrible-analysis-claims-flash-drives-consume-more-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

