<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_0754250</id>
	<title>Core i5 and i3 CPUs With On-Chip GPUs Launched</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262597760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"Intel has officially launched their new Core i5 and Core i3 lineup of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale\_(microprocessor)">Arrandale</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkdale\_(microprocessor)">Clarkdale</a> processors today, for mobile and desktop platforms respectively. Like Intel's recent release of the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/1426226/Intel-Launches-Next-Gen-Atom-N450-Processor">Pinetrail platform</a> for netbooks, new Arrandale and Clarkdale processors combine both an <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Arrandale-Core-i5-and-Core-i3-Mobile-Unveiled/?page=2">integrated memory controller (DDR3) and GPU</a> (graphics processor) on the same package as the main processor.  Though it's not a monolithic device, but is built upon multi-chip module packaging, it does allow these primary functional blocks to coexist in a single chip footprint or socket.  In addition, Intel beefed up their graphics core  and it appears that the new Intel GMA HD integrated graphics engine offers <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Clarkdale-Core-i5-Desktop-Processor-Debuts/?page=13">solid HD video performance</a> and even a bit of light gaming capability."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " Intel has officially launched their new Core i5 and Core i3 lineup of Arrandale and Clarkdale processors today , for mobile and desktop platforms respectively .
Like Intel 's recent release of the Pinetrail platform for netbooks , new Arrandale and Clarkdale processors combine both an integrated memory controller ( DDR3 ) and GPU ( graphics processor ) on the same package as the main processor .
Though it 's not a monolithic device , but is built upon multi-chip module packaging , it does allow these primary functional blocks to coexist in a single chip footprint or socket .
In addition , Intel beefed up their graphics core and it appears that the new Intel GMA HD integrated graphics engine offers solid HD video performance and even a bit of light gaming capability .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "Intel has officially launched their new Core i5 and Core i3 lineup of Arrandale and Clarkdale processors today, for mobile and desktop platforms respectively.
Like Intel's recent release of the Pinetrail platform for netbooks, new Arrandale and Clarkdale processors combine both an integrated memory controller (DDR3) and GPU (graphics processor) on the same package as the main processor.
Though it's not a monolithic device, but is built upon multi-chip module packaging, it does allow these primary functional blocks to coexist in a single chip footprint or socket.
In addition, Intel beefed up their graphics core  and it appears that the new Intel GMA HD integrated graphics engine offers solid HD video performance and even a bit of light gaming capability.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640736</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell...</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1262620920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably dual-core, with hyper-threading turned on.  Try one of the many CPU-ID programs to view your CPU's full features (or cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/proc/cpuinfo on Linux)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably dual-core , with hyper-threading turned on .
Try one of the many CPU-ID programs to view your CPU 's full features ( or cat /proc/cpuinfo on Linux )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably dual-core, with hyper-threading turned on.
Try one of the many CPU-ID programs to view your CPU's full features (or cat /proc/cpuinfo on Linux)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638958</id>
	<title>Sockets and mobos</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1262604240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The average consumer has little chance of realizing an i7 may need a 1156 or a 1366 socket depending on what the model number is. Those should really have been named differently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average consumer has little chance of realizing an i7 may need a 1156 or a 1366 socket depending on what the model number is .
Those should really have been named differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average consumer has little chance of realizing an i7 may need a 1156 or a 1366 socket depending on what the model number is.
Those should really have been named differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639310</id>
	<title>Interesting implications</title>
	<author>rpp3po</author>
	<datestamp>1262609880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you might have missed that Intel already is the largest GPU vendor in the world for years (gaming is small compared to B2B sales), you are right, anyway. When offering intel CPUs implies having to buy their GPU, the air will become thin for excellent integrated chipset offerings as Nvidia's. Instead of pushing customers through secret, anti-competitive contracts, they have just changed their product lineup. Want a CPU? Fine, but you can't have it without a GPU.</p><p>It will be interesting to see, wether Apple will get special treatment. The have already semi-officially let a word slip out, that they are not interested in the Arrandale GPU and won't use it. It's just not powerful enough for their GPU-laden OS and application lineup compared to Nvidia's chipset offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you might have missed that Intel already is the largest GPU vendor in the world for years ( gaming is small compared to B2B sales ) , you are right , anyway .
When offering intel CPUs implies having to buy their GPU , the air will become thin for excellent integrated chipset offerings as Nvidia 's .
Instead of pushing customers through secret , anti-competitive contracts , they have just changed their product lineup .
Want a CPU ?
Fine , but you ca n't have it without a GPU.It will be interesting to see , wether Apple will get special treatment .
The have already semi-officially let a word slip out , that they are not interested in the Arrandale GPU and wo n't use it .
It 's just not powerful enough for their GPU-laden OS and application lineup compared to Nvidia 's chipset offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you might have missed that Intel already is the largest GPU vendor in the world for years (gaming is small compared to B2B sales), you are right, anyway.
When offering intel CPUs implies having to buy their GPU, the air will become thin for excellent integrated chipset offerings as Nvidia's.
Instead of pushing customers through secret, anti-competitive contracts, they have just changed their product lineup.
Want a CPU?
Fine, but you can't have it without a GPU.It will be interesting to see, wether Apple will get special treatment.
The have already semi-officially let a word slip out, that they are not interested in the Arrandale GPU and won't use it.
It's just not powerful enough for their GPU-laden OS and application lineup compared to Nvidia's chipset offerings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760</id>
	<title>OK can someone clear this up</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1262614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no idea of what intel are calling their cips and which is the best etc<p>

Can someone answer these 'simple' questions - In terms of regular geek activities, movie playing/encoding, gaming, compiling, rendering, desktop use, all the regular things

</p><p>
1. Which processor is the all out fastest, best (money no object)</p><p>
2. Which processor is the best bang for buck (money and object)</p><p>
3. how do intel chips compare to amd on the bang per buck level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea of what intel are calling their cips and which is the best etc Can someone answer these 'simple ' questions - In terms of regular geek activities , movie playing/encoding , gaming , compiling , rendering , desktop use , all the regular things 1 .
Which processor is the all out fastest , best ( money no object ) 2 .
Which processor is the best bang for buck ( money and object ) 3. how do intel chips compare to amd on the bang per buck level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea of what intel are calling their cips and which is the best etc

Can someone answer these 'simple' questions - In terms of regular geek activities, movie playing/encoding, gaming, compiling, rendering, desktop use, all the regular things


1.
Which processor is the all out fastest, best (money no object)
2.
Which processor is the best bang for buck (money and object)
3. how do intel chips compare to amd on the bang per buck level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639264</id>
	<title>Vista Ready ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is it "Vista Ready"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well ... is it " Vista Ready " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well ... is it "Vista Ready"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643248</id>
	<title>Perhaps ironically</title>
	<author>N Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things.</p></div><p>Ironically, if the folks <a href="http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1375401#post1375401" title="beyond3d.com">on Beyond3D are right</a> [beyond3d.com] PowerVR are still in the PC market in the Intel Lincroft chipset with dedicated 3D, video decode and video encode IP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things.Ironically , if the folks on Beyond3D are right [ beyond3d.com ] PowerVR are still in the PC market in the Intel Lincroft chipset with dedicated 3D , video decode and video encode IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things.Ironically, if the folks on Beyond3D are right [beyond3d.com] PowerVR are still in the PC market in the Intel Lincroft chipset with dedicated 3D, video decode and video encode IP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044</id>
	<title>What the hell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell is up with their model numbers? Quick, is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core!? At least Intel's older Core 2 processors differentiated with "Duo" or "Quad", and AMD's simply uses "X2","X3" or "X4".</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is up with their model numbers ?
Quick , is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core ! ?
At least Intel 's older Core 2 processors differentiated with " Duo " or " Quad " , and AMD 's simply uses " X2 " , " X3 " or " X4 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is up with their model numbers?
Quick, is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core!?
At least Intel's older Core 2 processors differentiated with "Duo" or "Quad", and AMD's simply uses "X2","X3" or "X4".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640260</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1262618580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  And for a while, Pentium meant "Core Duo, not Core 2 though".</p><p>It's why I've been VERY wary of anything but "Core whatever" branded CPUs, to Intel's detriment - I've held off on an HTPC purchase for a while because the cost was more than I was willing to justify, and Adobe Flash is iffy unless you have a LOT of CPU horsepower...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
And for a while , Pentium meant " Core Duo , not Core 2 though " .It 's why I 've been VERY wary of anything but " Core whatever " branded CPUs , to Intel 's detriment - I 've held off on an HTPC purchase for a while because the cost was more than I was willing to justify , and Adobe Flash is iffy unless you have a LOT of CPU horsepower.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
And for a while, Pentium meant "Core Duo, not Core 2 though".It's why I've been VERY wary of anything but "Core whatever" branded CPUs, to Intel's detriment - I've held off on an HTPC purchase for a while because the cost was more than I was willing to justify, and Adobe Flash is iffy unless you have a LOT of CPU horsepower...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638770</id>
	<title>upgrade treadmill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stop it, I want to get off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stop it , I want to get off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop it, I want to get off!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640566</id>
	<title>Re:tough day for nvidia stock</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1262620200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this, and concluding that the gpu business is doomed.</p></div><p>Intel is going to have to come out with a GPU that's better than a 4 year old nvidia gpu first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this , and concluding that the gpu business is doomed.Intel is going to have to come out with a GPU that 's better than a 4 year old nvidia gpu first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this, and concluding that the gpu business is doomed.Intel is going to have to come out with a GPU that's better than a 4 year old nvidia gpu first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640268</id>
	<title>Re:Not that different</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1262618640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My laptop sticker says "Centrino 2", and I just happen to know that that's a Penryn (and what "Penryn" means). I think it's safe to say Intel's naming scheme sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My laptop sticker says " Centrino 2 " , and I just happen to know that that 's a Penryn ( and what " Penryn " means ) .
I think it 's safe to say Intel 's naming scheme sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My laptop sticker says "Centrino 2", and I just happen to know that that's a Penryn (and what "Penryn" means).
I think it's safe to say Intel's naming scheme sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644408</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1262635860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>am... am I reading this in 2010? does intel even sell core 1 anything anymore? Core 1 came and went in about six months. Back in 2006 or so. You can buy a core 2 solo on the budget end, but nowadays you can buy something like a Dell Zino for $350 in basically a mac mini formfactor that will push 1080p no problem. Where have you been the last two years? Core 1 Solos had no problem pushing 1080p with a proper video card, a Core2 solo (when you can find them) shouldn't have any problem either with a more midrange card. Your post is the most bizzare piece of FUD I've read in a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>am... am I reading this in 2010 ?
does intel even sell core 1 anything anymore ?
Core 1 came and went in about six months .
Back in 2006 or so .
You can buy a core 2 solo on the budget end , but nowadays you can buy something like a Dell Zino for $ 350 in basically a mac mini formfactor that will push 1080p no problem .
Where have you been the last two years ?
Core 1 Solos had no problem pushing 1080p with a proper video card , a Core2 solo ( when you can find them ) should n't have any problem either with a more midrange card .
Your post is the most bizzare piece of FUD I 've read in a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>am... am I reading this in 2010?
does intel even sell core 1 anything anymore?
Core 1 came and went in about six months.
Back in 2006 or so.
You can buy a core 2 solo on the budget end, but nowadays you can buy something like a Dell Zino for $350 in basically a mac mini formfactor that will push 1080p no problem.
Where have you been the last two years?
Core 1 Solos had no problem pushing 1080p with a proper video card, a Core2 solo (when you can find them) shouldn't have any problem either with a more midrange card.
Your post is the most bizzare piece of FUD I've read in a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436</id>
	<title>Not that different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel also has three lines that more or less directly correspond to AMDs: Core/Phenom (good), Pentium/Athlon (ok) and Celeron/Sempron (cheap), plus the server Xeon/Opteron. The real pain is the amount of different model numbers and numbering schemes. The secret decoder ring for Intel models is:</p><p>A) old three number codes<br>E.g. Pentium 965, Celeron 450,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>First digit is the model, second digit corresponds to the speed<br>These are usually old crap and should be avoided. Celeron 743 and Celeron 900 fairly recent low-end chips that you can still buy.</p><p>B) Letter plus four numbers codes, e.g. SU7300:<br>* S = small form factor<br>* U = ultra-low voltage (5-10W), L = low-voltage (17W), P = medium voltage (25W), T = desktop replacement (35W), E = Desktop (65W), Q = quad-core (65-130W), X = extreme edition<br>* 7 = model line, tells you about amount of cache, VT capability etc. Scale goes from 1 (crap) to 9 (can't afford).<br>* 3 = clock frequency, relative performance within the line. Scale from 0 to 9.<br>* 00 = random features disabled or enabled, have to look up for specific details.</p><p>C) New Core i3-XYZa<br>Similar to scheme B, with the added dash and more confusing<br>* i3 = Line within Core brand, can be i3 (cheap, but better than Celeron or Pentium), i5 (decent) or i7 (high-end)<br>* X = the actual model, tells you the amount of cache and number of cores, but only together with the processor line (i3-5xx is very different from i5-5xx)<br>* Y = corresponds to clock speed, higher is better<br>* Z = modifier, currently 0, 1 or 5 for specific features<br>* a = type of processor: X = extreme, M = mobile, QM = quad-core mobile, LM = low-voltage mobile, UM = ultra-low-voltage mobile</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel also has three lines that more or less directly correspond to AMDs : Core/Phenom ( good ) , Pentium/Athlon ( ok ) and Celeron/Sempron ( cheap ) , plus the server Xeon/Opteron .
The real pain is the amount of different model numbers and numbering schemes .
The secret decoder ring for Intel models is : A ) old three number codesE.g .
Pentium 965 , Celeron 450 , ...First digit is the model , second digit corresponds to the speedThese are usually old crap and should be avoided .
Celeron 743 and Celeron 900 fairly recent low-end chips that you can still buy.B ) Letter plus four numbers codes , e.g .
SU7300 : * S = small form factor * U = ultra-low voltage ( 5-10W ) , L = low-voltage ( 17W ) , P = medium voltage ( 25W ) , T = desktop replacement ( 35W ) , E = Desktop ( 65W ) , Q = quad-core ( 65-130W ) , X = extreme edition * 7 = model line , tells you about amount of cache , VT capability etc .
Scale goes from 1 ( crap ) to 9 ( ca n't afford ) .
* 3 = clock frequency , relative performance within the line .
Scale from 0 to 9 .
* 00 = random features disabled or enabled , have to look up for specific details.C ) New Core i3-XYZaSimilar to scheme B , with the added dash and more confusing * i3 = Line within Core brand , can be i3 ( cheap , but better than Celeron or Pentium ) , i5 ( decent ) or i7 ( high-end ) * X = the actual model , tells you the amount of cache and number of cores , but only together with the processor line ( i3-5xx is very different from i5-5xx ) * Y = corresponds to clock speed , higher is better * Z = modifier , currently 0 , 1 or 5 for specific features * a = type of processor : X = extreme , M = mobile , QM = quad-core mobile , LM = low-voltage mobile , UM = ultra-low-voltage mobile</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel also has three lines that more or less directly correspond to AMDs: Core/Phenom (good), Pentium/Athlon (ok) and Celeron/Sempron (cheap), plus the server Xeon/Opteron.
The real pain is the amount of different model numbers and numbering schemes.
The secret decoder ring for Intel models is:A) old three number codesE.g.
Pentium 965, Celeron 450, ...First digit is the model, second digit corresponds to the speedThese are usually old crap and should be avoided.
Celeron 743 and Celeron 900 fairly recent low-end chips that you can still buy.B) Letter plus four numbers codes, e.g.
SU7300:* S = small form factor* U = ultra-low voltage (5-10W), L = low-voltage (17W), P = medium voltage (25W), T = desktop replacement (35W), E = Desktop (65W), Q = quad-core (65-130W), X = extreme edition* 7 = model line, tells you about amount of cache, VT capability etc.
Scale goes from 1 (crap) to 9 (can't afford).
* 3 = clock frequency, relative performance within the line.
Scale from 0 to 9.
* 00 = random features disabled or enabled, have to look up for specific details.C) New Core i3-XYZaSimilar to scheme B, with the added dash and more confusing* i3 = Line within Core brand, can be i3 (cheap, but better than Celeron or Pentium), i5 (decent) or i7 (high-end)* X = the actual model, tells you the amount of cache and number of cores, but only together with the processor line (i3-5xx is very different from i5-5xx)* Y = corresponds to clock speed, higher is better* Z = modifier, currently 0, 1 or 5 for specific features* a = type of processor: X = extreme, M = mobile, QM = quad-core mobile, LM = low-voltage mobile, UM = ultra-low-voltage mobile</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832</id>
	<title>Video decoding under Linux</title>
	<author>sajjen</author>
	<datestamp>1262602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the state of video decoding support under Linux for these integrated GPUs? I've been looking for something to update my HTPC with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the state of video decoding support under Linux for these integrated GPUs ?
I 've been looking for something to update my HTPC with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the state of video decoding support under Linux for these integrated GPUs?
I've been looking for something to update my HTPC with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639880</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262615640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought an i7 as part of a general upgrade a few months ago; it wasn't until I had it installed and happened to check Task Manager that I realised it was a quad core chip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought an i7 as part of a general upgrade a few months ago ; it was n't until I had it installed and happened to check Task Manager that I realised it was a quad core chip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought an i7 as part of a general upgrade a few months ago; it wasn't until I had it installed and happened to check Task Manager that I realised it was a quad core chip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976</id>
	<title>Do Not Want!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else suspicious of this? Intel trying to use its CPU monopoly to gain a GPU monopoly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else suspicious of this ?
Intel trying to use its CPU monopoly to gain a GPU monopoly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else suspicious of this?
Intel trying to use its CPU monopoly to gain a GPU monopoly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648342</id>
	<title>Don't bet against integration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Didn't we get over that in about 1999?</p></div><p>No.  The semiconductor business never gets over integration.  Integration is the reason you can afford to own or use computers.</p><p>Discrete graphics cards represent a small and shrinking fraction of the personal computing world.  They have high margins for manufactures so they are still being supplied.  These margins make them targets for Intel, however.</p><p>Probably more than 90\% of the laptops in the world use integrated graphics, and laptops represent more than half of all personal computers sold.  Integrated graphics will ultimately win because it's cheaper, more reliable and uses less energy.  That's why disk controllers, sound devices, network devices and even wifi radios have been integrated on to motherboards.  All of that stuff use to be discrete.  Graphics is being integrated directly into the CPU package due to the high bandwidth needed.</p><p>Don't ever bet against integration; you'll lose every time you try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we get over that in about 1999 ? No .
The semiconductor business never gets over integration .
Integration is the reason you can afford to own or use computers.Discrete graphics cards represent a small and shrinking fraction of the personal computing world .
They have high margins for manufactures so they are still being supplied .
These margins make them targets for Intel , however.Probably more than 90 \ % of the laptops in the world use integrated graphics , and laptops represent more than half of all personal computers sold .
Integrated graphics will ultimately win because it 's cheaper , more reliable and uses less energy .
That 's why disk controllers , sound devices , network devices and even wifi radios have been integrated on to motherboards .
All of that stuff use to be discrete .
Graphics is being integrated directly into the CPU package due to the high bandwidth needed.Do n't ever bet against integration ; you 'll lose every time you try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we get over that in about 1999?No.
The semiconductor business never gets over integration.
Integration is the reason you can afford to own or use computers.Discrete graphics cards represent a small and shrinking fraction of the personal computing world.
They have high margins for manufactures so they are still being supplied.
These margins make them targets for Intel, however.Probably more than 90\% of the laptops in the world use integrated graphics, and laptops represent more than half of all personal computers sold.
Integrated graphics will ultimately win because it's cheaper, more reliable and uses less energy.
That's why disk controllers, sound devices, network devices and even wifi radios have been integrated on to motherboards.
All of that stuff use to be discrete.
Graphics is being integrated directly into the CPU package due to the high bandwidth needed.Don't ever bet against integration; you'll lose every time you try.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638812</id>
	<title>To GPU bandwidth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Itching to see how good these chips are at some number crunching on the GPU portion.  I've always had an issue with the traditional bandwidth of system memory to GPU memory.  That northbridge pisses me off.</p><p>I realise these particular chips are mobile processors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Itching to see how good these chips are at some number crunching on the GPU portion .
I 've always had an issue with the traditional bandwidth of system memory to GPU memory .
That northbridge pisses me off.I realise these particular chips are mobile processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Itching to see how good these chips are at some number crunching on the GPU portion.
I've always had an issue with the traditional bandwidth of system memory to GPU memory.
That northbridge pisses me off.I realise these particular chips are mobile processors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640588</id>
	<title>Re:OK can someone clear this up</title>
	<author>W2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262620320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. Every PC hardware site worth a penny does regular articles on which CPU is currently the fastest and which will give you the most for your money. As well as comparisons between Intel/AMD. My favorite site for such things is Tom's Hardware, though Google will likely find you many more.</p><p>Which CPU is actually fastest heavily depends on what you will be using it for. Your list of "regular geek activities" does not narrow it down enough. Also, many applications contain optimizations that target a particular CPU family or architecture.</p><p>CPU articles: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/CPU,1/" title="tomshardware.co.uk">http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/CPU,1/</a> [tomshardware.co.uk] </p><p>Best (gaming) CPU for the money as of dec 09:  <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31755.html" title="tomshardware.co.uk">http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31755.html</a> [tomshardware.co.uk] </p><p>All CPU performance charts: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/processors,6.html" title="tomshardware.co.uk">http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/processors,6.html</a> [tomshardware.co.uk] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
Every PC hardware site worth a penny does regular articles on which CPU is currently the fastest and which will give you the most for your money .
As well as comparisons between Intel/AMD .
My favorite site for such things is Tom 's Hardware , though Google will likely find you many more.Which CPU is actually fastest heavily depends on what you will be using it for .
Your list of " regular geek activities " does not narrow it down enough .
Also , many applications contain optimizations that target a particular CPU family or architecture.CPU articles : http : //www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/CPU,1/ [ tomshardware.co.uk ] Best ( gaming ) CPU for the money as of dec 09 : http : //www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31755.html [ tomshardware.co.uk ] All CPU performance charts : http : //www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/processors,6.html [ tomshardware.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
Every PC hardware site worth a penny does regular articles on which CPU is currently the fastest and which will give you the most for your money.
As well as comparisons between Intel/AMD.
My favorite site for such things is Tom's Hardware, though Google will likely find you many more.Which CPU is actually fastest heavily depends on what you will be using it for.
Your list of "regular geek activities" does not narrow it down enough.
Also, many applications contain optimizations that target a particular CPU family or architecture.CPU articles: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/CPU,1/ [tomshardware.co.uk] Best (gaming) CPU for the money as of dec 09:  http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31755.html [tomshardware.co.uk] All CPU performance charts: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/processors,6.html [tomshardware.co.uk] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638998</id>
	<title>Re:Video decoding under Linux</title>
	<author>daoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1262604960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got a HTPC for me this Xmas. It's Intel Atom N330 dual core + Nvidia ION

You can either build it youself or buy a system from some of the vendors. If you build youself, it's cheaper and you can get a much bigger hardrive (1TB), the pre-built systems these days usually ship with 320GB HD. But they usually got a better form factor.

Mine got pefect and smooth 1080p playback. I use XBMC (xbmc.org) on ubuntu 9.10

You just need to install the lastest Nvidia driver: <a href="https://launchpad.net/~nvidia-vdpau/+archive/ppa" title="launchpad.net" rel="nofollow">https://launchpad.net/~nvidia-vdpau/+archive/ppa</a> [launchpad.net]

Get youself a MCE remote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a HTPC for me this Xmas .
It 's Intel Atom N330 dual core + Nvidia ION You can either build it youself or buy a system from some of the vendors .
If you build youself , it 's cheaper and you can get a much bigger hardrive ( 1TB ) , the pre-built systems these days usually ship with 320GB HD .
But they usually got a better form factor .
Mine got pefect and smooth 1080p playback .
I use XBMC ( xbmc.org ) on ubuntu 9.10 You just need to install the lastest Nvidia driver : https : //launchpad.net/ ~ nvidia-vdpau/ + archive/ppa [ launchpad.net ] Get youself a MCE remote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a HTPC for me this Xmas.
It's Intel Atom N330 dual core + Nvidia ION

You can either build it youself or buy a system from some of the vendors.
If you build youself, it's cheaper and you can get a much bigger hardrive (1TB), the pre-built systems these days usually ship with 320GB HD.
But they usually got a better form factor.
Mine got pefect and smooth 1080p playback.
I use XBMC (xbmc.org) on ubuntu 9.10

You just need to install the lastest Nvidia driver: https://launchpad.net/~nvidia-vdpau/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net]

Get youself a MCE remote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639448</id>
	<title>Article is terrible</title>
	<author>sammydee</author>
	<datestamp>1262611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is awful. There is only one game benchmark and that compared to an integrated AMD GPU that hardly anybody has heard of. There is also no way of telling from the article whether the integrated intel graphics actually has HD video decode acceleration or not. The modern core i5 chips are pretty capable of decoding 1080p content by themselves without any gpu assistance.</p><p>I think the article writer misunderstands how hardware video decode assist actually works. It isn't magically engaged when you play any HD movie in any media player (usually it has to be turned on in an option somewhere with a media player app that supports it) and it isn't a sliding scale of cpu usage. Modern decoding chips either decode EVERYTHING on the card, reducing cpu usage to 1\% or 2\%, or the app decodes EVERYTHING in software, resulting in fairly high cpu usage.</p><p>I still have no idea if the new intel graphics chip actually offers any HD video acceleration at all. If it did, it would make it a nice choice for low power and HTPC solutions. If it doesn't, it's just another crappy integrated graphics card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is awful .
There is only one game benchmark and that compared to an integrated AMD GPU that hardly anybody has heard of .
There is also no way of telling from the article whether the integrated intel graphics actually has HD video decode acceleration or not .
The modern core i5 chips are pretty capable of decoding 1080p content by themselves without any gpu assistance.I think the article writer misunderstands how hardware video decode assist actually works .
It is n't magically engaged when you play any HD movie in any media player ( usually it has to be turned on in an option somewhere with a media player app that supports it ) and it is n't a sliding scale of cpu usage .
Modern decoding chips either decode EVERYTHING on the card , reducing cpu usage to 1 \ % or 2 \ % , or the app decodes EVERYTHING in software , resulting in fairly high cpu usage.I still have no idea if the new intel graphics chip actually offers any HD video acceleration at all .
If it did , it would make it a nice choice for low power and HTPC solutions .
If it does n't , it 's just another crappy integrated graphics card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is awful.
There is only one game benchmark and that compared to an integrated AMD GPU that hardly anybody has heard of.
There is also no way of telling from the article whether the integrated intel graphics actually has HD video decode acceleration or not.
The modern core i5 chips are pretty capable of decoding 1080p content by themselves without any gpu assistance.I think the article writer misunderstands how hardware video decode assist actually works.
It isn't magically engaged when you play any HD movie in any media player (usually it has to be turned on in an option somewhere with a media player app that supports it) and it isn't a sliding scale of cpu usage.
Modern decoding chips either decode EVERYTHING on the card, reducing cpu usage to 1\% or 2\%, or the app decodes EVERYTHING in software, resulting in fairly high cpu usage.I still have no idea if the new intel graphics chip actually offers any HD video acceleration at all.
If it did, it would make it a nice choice for low power and HTPC solutions.
If it doesn't, it's just another crappy integrated graphics card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638974</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could compare Pentium 4s to each other pretty reliably based on clock speed.  Sure, the Northwoods were a bit faster than the Prescotts, and the Extreme Edition chips had a nice speed boost from the cache, but generally clockspeed made em' match up.</p><p>However, turbo boost / new architectures can give a 50\% speed boost on tasks like x264 encoding when you're talking core 2 vs i5.  The frequent changes necessitate new naming schemes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could compare Pentium 4s to each other pretty reliably based on clock speed .
Sure , the Northwoods were a bit faster than the Prescotts , and the Extreme Edition chips had a nice speed boost from the cache , but generally clockspeed made em ' match up.However , turbo boost / new architectures can give a 50 \ % speed boost on tasks like x264 encoding when you 're talking core 2 vs i5 .
The frequent changes necessitate new naming schemes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could compare Pentium 4s to each other pretty reliably based on clock speed.
Sure, the Northwoods were a bit faster than the Prescotts, and the Extreme Edition chips had a nice speed boost from the cache, but generally clockspeed made em' match up.However, turbo boost / new architectures can give a 50\% speed boost on tasks like x264 encoding when you're talking core 2 vs i5.
The frequent changes necessitate new naming schemes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640144</id>
	<title>Excellent point!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing companies care about is for you to give them money. Confusing you into doing so is obviously a benefit to them. Remember the Megahurtz war?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing companies care about is for you to give them money .
Confusing you into doing so is obviously a benefit to them .
Remember the Megahurtz war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing companies care about is for you to give them money.
Confusing you into doing so is obviously a benefit to them.
Remember the Megahurtz war?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30653270</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting implications</title>
	<author>vcompiler</author>
	<datestamp>1262693340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was one time people bought resistances, capacitances, and transistors to build up their own circuit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was one time people bought resistances , capacitances , and transistors to build up their own circuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was one time people bought resistances, capacitances, and transistors to build up their own circuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1262604660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is one of the reasons I ended up switching to AMD. With Intel it was getting to be a PITA to figure out which were the "good" chips, which were the "okay" chips and which were the cheapos. Especially since some of their chips have VT and some don't. I like how AMD only has three lines-Phenom = (best) Athlon = (good) and Sempron = (cheapo). Plus I remember what it was like when Intel was a monopoly and do NOT want to go back!</p><p> And lets be honest, once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back. Checking the logs on my customer's PCs on followup even the duals are spending a good amount of their time twiddling their thumbs, because the average user just doesn't come up with enough work to keep them fed. And with the economy in the crapper my customers like how cheap the new AMDs are. Hell you can get a quad for $99!</p><p>

And as far as these new chips go, does Intel <strong>want to get a monopoly charge</strong> dropped on it? I mean here they are, being investigated left and right, and the come out with a whole new line of chips with onboard GPUs which looks like it is just another shot at locking out Nvidia. It sure as hell smells to me like trying to lock up the chipset market for themselves. I predict if Intel doesn't get a serious smack down from the EU or Justice Dept that it is gonna end up just them and AMD unless Nvidia buys Via and tries to get in the game that way. Does ATI even make chipsets for Intel boards since being bought by AMD? I know they locked Nvidia into the dead end LGA775 and basically give up. So is there anyone besides Intel making chips for the new socket?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one of the reasons I ended up switching to AMD .
With Intel it was getting to be a PITA to figure out which were the " good " chips , which were the " okay " chips and which were the cheapos .
Especially since some of their chips have VT and some do n't .
I like how AMD only has three lines-Phenom = ( best ) Athlon = ( good ) and Sempron = ( cheapo ) .
Plus I remember what it was like when Intel was a monopoly and do NOT want to go back !
And lets be honest , once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back .
Checking the logs on my customer 's PCs on followup even the duals are spending a good amount of their time twiddling their thumbs , because the average user just does n't come up with enough work to keep them fed .
And with the economy in the crapper my customers like how cheap the new AMDs are .
Hell you can get a quad for $ 99 !
And as far as these new chips go , does Intel want to get a monopoly charge dropped on it ?
I mean here they are , being investigated left and right , and the come out with a whole new line of chips with onboard GPUs which looks like it is just another shot at locking out Nvidia .
It sure as hell smells to me like trying to lock up the chipset market for themselves .
I predict if Intel does n't get a serious smack down from the EU or Justice Dept that it is gon na end up just them and AMD unless Nvidia buys Via and tries to get in the game that way .
Does ATI even make chipsets for Intel boards since being bought by AMD ?
I know they locked Nvidia into the dead end LGA775 and basically give up .
So is there anyone besides Intel making chips for the new socket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one of the reasons I ended up switching to AMD.
With Intel it was getting to be a PITA to figure out which were the "good" chips, which were the "okay" chips and which were the cheapos.
Especially since some of their chips have VT and some don't.
I like how AMD only has three lines-Phenom = (best) Athlon = (good) and Sempron = (cheapo).
Plus I remember what it was like when Intel was a monopoly and do NOT want to go back!
And lets be honest, once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back.
Checking the logs on my customer's PCs on followup even the duals are spending a good amount of their time twiddling their thumbs, because the average user just doesn't come up with enough work to keep them fed.
And with the economy in the crapper my customers like how cheap the new AMDs are.
Hell you can get a quad for $99!
And as far as these new chips go, does Intel want to get a monopoly charge dropped on it?
I mean here they are, being investigated left and right, and the come out with a whole new line of chips with onboard GPUs which looks like it is just another shot at locking out Nvidia.
It sure as hell smells to me like trying to lock up the chipset market for themselves.
I predict if Intel doesn't get a serious smack down from the EU or Justice Dept that it is gonna end up just them and AMD unless Nvidia buys Via and tries to get in the game that way.
Does ATI even make chipsets for Intel boards since being bought by AMD?
I know they locked Nvidia into the dead end LGA775 and basically give up.
So is there anyone besides Intel making chips for the new socket?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640374</id>
	<title>Mainboards/chipsets for i5/i7 are expensive too</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262619300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to make 2 alternatives for my imaginary new PC (as I am getting sick of Apple), one AMD Athlon 2 Quad based, other i5 or i7 based.</p><p>If you go with a trusted brand like Asus, the mainboard may cost more than the CPU itself! AMD mainboards are way cheaper and has an integrated but a REAL gpu, ATI 4000 something which really supports up to directx 10.1 and has several 2d acceleration features.</p><p>I couldn't see usual suspects offering i5/i7 supporting chipsets, VIA etc... Or they are a bit late...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to make 2 alternatives for my imaginary new PC ( as I am getting sick of Apple ) , one AMD Athlon 2 Quad based , other i5 or i7 based.If you go with a trusted brand like Asus , the mainboard may cost more than the CPU itself !
AMD mainboards are way cheaper and has an integrated but a REAL gpu , ATI 4000 something which really supports up to directx 10.1 and has several 2d acceleration features.I could n't see usual suspects offering i5/i7 supporting chipsets , VIA etc... Or they are a bit late.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to make 2 alternatives for my imaginary new PC (as I am getting sick of Apple), one AMD Athlon 2 Quad based, other i5 or i7 based.If you go with a trusted brand like Asus, the mainboard may cost more than the CPU itself!
AMD mainboards are way cheaper and has an integrated but a REAL gpu, ATI 4000 something which really supports up to directx 10.1 and has several 2d acceleration features.I couldn't see usual suspects offering i5/i7 supporting chipsets, VIA etc... Or they are a bit late...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639508</id>
	<title>solid HD performance?</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1262612220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with 20.7 frames per second?<br>that's not what i call solid performance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with 20.7 frames per second ? that 's not what i call solid performance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with 20.7 frames per second?that's not what i call solid performance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639952</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262616120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And lets be honest, once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back.</p></div></blockquote><p>When has that <i>not</i> been the case with PCs?</p><p>They've always been way past good enough for the average user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And lets be honest , once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back.When has that not been the case with PCs ? They 've always been way past good enough for the average user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And lets be honest, once we hit dual cores for the average Joe the PC ha passed good enough a few miles back.When has that not been the case with PCs?They've always been way past good enough for the average user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639256</id>
	<title>Re:Do Not Want!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will further cement thier already near monopoly in the integrated graphics for intel based systems segment. Whether it will have much impact on the gamer graphics segment depends on how well it performs. It seems that they have more or less caught up with AMD integrated graphics but I don't think that in itself is enough to seriously impact on sales of discrete graphics cards.</p><p>Unfortunately TFA jumps straight from integrated graphics to a &pound;130 card and uses completely different settings for the two tests. What i'd really like to see is a comparison of the integrated graphics on these things with say a 8400 GS (a &pound;25 card).</p><p>anyone here got an 8400GS and one of the games used in TFA and prepared to run some benchmarks at the settings they used for the integrated graphics test? (yeah I know the rest of the system won't match but all i'm interested in are ballpark figures)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will further cement thier already near monopoly in the integrated graphics for intel based systems segment .
Whether it will have much impact on the gamer graphics segment depends on how well it performs .
It seems that they have more or less caught up with AMD integrated graphics but I do n't think that in itself is enough to seriously impact on sales of discrete graphics cards.Unfortunately TFA jumps straight from integrated graphics to a   130 card and uses completely different settings for the two tests .
What i 'd really like to see is a comparison of the integrated graphics on these things with say a 8400 GS ( a   25 card ) .anyone here got an 8400GS and one of the games used in TFA and prepared to run some benchmarks at the settings they used for the integrated graphics test ?
( yeah I know the rest of the system wo n't match but all i 'm interested in are ballpark figures )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will further cement thier already near monopoly in the integrated graphics for intel based systems segment.
Whether it will have much impact on the gamer graphics segment depends on how well it performs.
It seems that they have more or less caught up with AMD integrated graphics but I don't think that in itself is enough to seriously impact on sales of discrete graphics cards.Unfortunately TFA jumps straight from integrated graphics to a £130 card and uses completely different settings for the two tests.
What i'd really like to see is a comparison of the integrated graphics on these things with say a 8400 GS (a £25 card).anyone here got an 8400GS and one of the games used in TFA and prepared to run some benchmarks at the settings they used for the integrated graphics test?
(yeah I know the rest of the system won't match but all i'm interested in are ballpark figures)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639546</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1262612640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as far as these new chips go, does Intel want to get a monopoly charge dropped on it?</p></div><p>The writing has been on the wall for a while, it will all be integrated into one chip at least on the low end. Oh sure Intel might get slapped one way or the other but by the time the dust settles it'll all be on a &lt;30nm chip and no court will manage to force them to create discrete chips again.</p><p>The other part is games but the chips are running ahead of eyes and displays and developer time, if you looked at the latest reviews they only test at 2560x1600 with full AA/AF. I'm sure Fermi will be impressive but 30" displays is a tiny niche and the rest don't need it.</p><p>nVidia is talking about supercomputers and GPGPU but they're going the way of Cray and SGI, into some niche where they'll slowly wither away. AMD will hang in their because their CPU/GPU combos beat Intel on the GPU part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as far as these new chips go , does Intel want to get a monopoly charge dropped on it ? The writing has been on the wall for a while , it will all be integrated into one chip at least on the low end .
Oh sure Intel might get slapped one way or the other but by the time the dust settles it 'll all be on a The other part is games but the chips are running ahead of eyes and displays and developer time , if you looked at the latest reviews they only test at 2560x1600 with full AA/AF .
I 'm sure Fermi will be impressive but 30 " displays is a tiny niche and the rest do n't need it.nVidia is talking about supercomputers and GPGPU but they 're going the way of Cray and SGI , into some niche where they 'll slowly wither away .
AMD will hang in their because their CPU/GPU combos beat Intel on the GPU part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as far as these new chips go, does Intel want to get a monopoly charge dropped on it?The writing has been on the wall for a while, it will all be integrated into one chip at least on the low end.
Oh sure Intel might get slapped one way or the other but by the time the dust settles it'll all be on a The other part is games but the chips are running ahead of eyes and displays and developer time, if you looked at the latest reviews they only test at 2560x1600 with full AA/AF.
I'm sure Fermi will be impressive but 30" displays is a tiny niche and the rest don't need it.nVidia is talking about supercomputers and GPGPU but they're going the way of Cray and SGI, into some niche where they'll slowly wither away.
AMD will hang in their because their CPU/GPU combos beat Intel on the GPU part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638950</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the CPU lineup goes like this:<br>8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, Athlon, umm not sure if there is anything faster than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the CPU lineup goes like this : 8088 , 8086 , 80286 , 80386 , 80486 , Pentium , Athlon , umm not sure if there is anything faster than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the CPU lineup goes like this:8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, Athlon, umm not sure if there is anything faster than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640330</id>
	<title>i5/i7 am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262618940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I finally understand, i5 is lighter version of i7 with less cache. OK, it is what Intel did for years with Pentium/Celeron.</p><p>What is the basis of not enabling "HT" on lower end while it is on higher end which is already in use by high end Workstations and apps actually using the cores and doesn't need some fake virtual CPU to fill threads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I finally understand , i5 is lighter version of i7 with less cache .
OK , it is what Intel did for years with Pentium/Celeron.What is the basis of not enabling " HT " on lower end while it is on higher end which is already in use by high end Workstations and apps actually using the cores and does n't need some fake virtual CPU to fill threads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I finally understand, i5 is lighter version of i7 with less cache.
OK, it is what Intel did for years with Pentium/Celeron.What is the basis of not enabling "HT" on lower end while it is on higher end which is already in use by high end Workstations and apps actually using the cores and doesn't need some fake virtual CPU to fill threads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully agree with this, it's absolutely impossible to fully understand Intel's CPU product line up. And why make all those different models anyway? I understand you have a branch of products focussing on power consumption and another on speed, but the current amount of different processors, brand names, code names, series, serial numbers is completely insane. Especially, as you point out, because the meaning of these names keep changing all the time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree with this , it 's absolutely impossible to fully understand Intel 's CPU product line up .
And why make all those different models anyway ?
I understand you have a branch of products focussing on power consumption and another on speed , but the current amount of different processors , brand names , code names , series , serial numbers is completely insane .
Especially , as you point out , because the meaning of these names keep changing all the time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully agree with this, it's absolutely impossible to fully understand Intel's CPU product line up.
And why make all those different models anyway?
I understand you have a branch of products focussing on power consumption and another on speed, but the current amount of different processors, brand names, code names, series, serial numbers is completely insane.
Especially, as you point out, because the meaning of these names keep changing all the time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639012</id>
	<title>Re:Do Not Want!</title>
	<author>kramulous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We breath oxygen.  What do you breath there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We breath oxygen .
What do you breath there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We breath oxygen.
What do you breath there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30646242</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1262599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who would need more than 640K of memory anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would need more than 640K of memory anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would need more than 640K of memory anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639902</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262615820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be dense. Reducing component count by integrating functionality provides enormous improvements in cost, reliability, power efficiency etc. There is no good reason for external GPUs except the immaturity of the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be dense .
Reducing component count by integrating functionality provides enormous improvements in cost , reliability , power efficiency etc .
There is no good reason for external GPUs except the immaturity of the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be dense.
Reducing component count by integrating functionality provides enormous improvements in cost, reliability, power efficiency etc.
There is no good reason for external GPUs except the immaturity of the technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639740</id>
	<title>Just the mere mention</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1262614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of integrated graphics makes me shudder. Didn't we get over that in about 1999? Seriously though this looks like a fairly terrible solution unless you feel like running Vista on something the size of an iPod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of integrated graphics makes me shudder .
Did n't we get over that in about 1999 ?
Seriously though this looks like a fairly terrible solution unless you feel like running Vista on something the size of an iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of integrated graphics makes me shudder.
Didn't we get over that in about 1999?
Seriously though this looks like a fairly terrible solution unless you feel like running Vista on something the size of an iPod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638882</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed things back then were so much more simple. You had pentium &amp; celeron, now you have celerton, celeron dual-core, c2d, c2q, i5, i7 not to mention all those different cores..oh god</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed things back then were so much more simple .
You had pentium &amp; celeron , now you have celerton , celeron dual-core , c2d , c2q , i5 , i7 not to mention all those different cores..oh god</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed things back then were so much more simple.
You had pentium &amp; celeron, now you have celerton, celeron dual-core, c2d, c2q, i5, i7 not to mention all those different cores..oh god</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643462</id>
	<title>Re:Video decoding under Linux</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1262631720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel chips only do XvMC (partial MPEG-2 acceleration).</p><p>ATI chips with UVD2 and running recent Catalyst drivers can make use of XVBA as a backend to VA-API. VA-API also has a VDPAU (Nvidia) backend, but VA-API is currently implemented in fewer projects than VDPAU. Only S3's Chrome 400/500 and Intel's (PowerVR's) GMA500 have native VA-API support, but their drivers are a cluster anyway.</p><p>Bottom line, unless you like binary Nvidia drivers, don't count on good video acceleration until after Gallium3D is in full effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel chips only do XvMC ( partial MPEG-2 acceleration ) .ATI chips with UVD2 and running recent Catalyst drivers can make use of XVBA as a backend to VA-API .
VA-API also has a VDPAU ( Nvidia ) backend , but VA-API is currently implemented in fewer projects than VDPAU .
Only S3 's Chrome 400/500 and Intel 's ( PowerVR 's ) GMA500 have native VA-API support , but their drivers are a cluster anyway.Bottom line , unless you like binary Nvidia drivers , do n't count on good video acceleration until after Gallium3D is in full effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel chips only do XvMC (partial MPEG-2 acceleration).ATI chips with UVD2 and running recent Catalyst drivers can make use of XVBA as a backend to VA-API.
VA-API also has a VDPAU (Nvidia) backend, but VA-API is currently implemented in fewer projects than VDPAU.
Only S3's Chrome 400/500 and Intel's (PowerVR's) GMA500 have native VA-API support, but their drivers are a cluster anyway.Bottom line, unless you like binary Nvidia drivers, don't count on good video acceleration until after Gallium3D is in full effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644026</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Quick, is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core!?</p></div></blockquote><p>Quad core. The dual core ones didn't come out until today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core !
? Quad core .
The dual core ones did n't come out until today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, is that i5 you have a dual core or a quad core!
?Quad core.
The dual core ones didn't come out until today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639480</id>
	<title>Re:Do Not Want!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jepp they already said they want to bankrupt nvidia, every move in the last year was in this direction, first shutting out the ION chipset by illegal pricing now trying to push the gpus into the core so that the cheap enough solution ends wherever nvidia (and ATI but they are less bothered since they can do the same) got its core money from, third fighting a patent war on them to shoot them out of the chipset market.</p><p>The entire thing started when NVidia was blabbering about you dont need CPU upgrades anymore just use the GPU for everything, that woke Intel up, and as usual with cheapass solutions which are worse but cheaper they kill off the competition!<br>Worked in the past works again.<br>I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jepp they already said they want to bankrupt nvidia , every move in the last year was in this direction , first shutting out the ION chipset by illegal pricing now trying to push the gpus into the core so that the cheap enough solution ends wherever nvidia ( and ATI but they are less bothered since they can do the same ) got its core money from , third fighting a patent war on them to shoot them out of the chipset market.The entire thing started when NVidia was blabbering about you dont need CPU upgrades anymore just use the GPU for everything , that woke Intel up , and as usual with cheapass solutions which are worse but cheaper they kill off the competition ! Worked in the past works again.I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jepp they already said they want to bankrupt nvidia, every move in the last year was in this direction, first shutting out the ION chipset by illegal pricing now trying to push the gpus into the core so that the cheap enough solution ends wherever nvidia (and ATI but they are less bothered since they can do the same) got its core money from, third fighting a patent war on them to shoot them out of the chipset market.The entire thing started when NVidia was blabbering about you dont need CPU upgrades anymore just use the GPU for everything, that woke Intel up, and as usual with cheapass solutions which are worse but cheaper they kill off the competition!Worked in the past works again.I wonder if we will see NVidia in 5 years at all in the PC market they might end up being a second PowerVR still healthy in the embedded sector but not at all present on the PC side of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30651630</id>
	<title>Re:OK can someone clear this up</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1262630640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. The latest Intel Core i7s<br>2. I bought a AMD Athlon x4 620 recently. Touted as the "$99 Quad Core Processor". If you can find a way to use up all the four cores it's basically the cheapest per clock.<br>3. Intel chips are generally more expensive. But Intel's high end stuff are hands down faster than AMD. But then considerations would include availability of supporting motherboards and the price of those too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The latest Intel Core i7s2 .
I bought a AMD Athlon x4 620 recently .
Touted as the " $ 99 Quad Core Processor " .
If you can find a way to use up all the four cores it 's basically the cheapest per clock.3 .
Intel chips are generally more expensive .
But Intel 's high end stuff are hands down faster than AMD .
But then considerations would include availability of supporting motherboards and the price of those too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The latest Intel Core i7s2.
I bought a AMD Athlon x4 620 recently.
Touted as the "$99 Quad Core Processor".
If you can find a way to use up all the four cores it's basically the cheapest per clock.3.
Intel chips are generally more expensive.
But Intel's high end stuff are hands down faster than AMD.
But then considerations would include availability of supporting motherboards and the price of those too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639322</id>
	<title>So here's the summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new Core i5 Clarkdale-based CPUs might be interesting, but they're overpriced.  These are dual core CPUs with Intel integrated graphics built into the CPU package, and they cost roughly as much as a quad core Lynfield (Core i5-750) or AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU, both of which will trounce it in any benchmark.  They are somewhat based on the Nehalem architecture, but they moved the memory controller off of the CPU core (while leaving it on the CPU package) introducing more latency and lower memory bandwidth.</p><p>The Core i3 CPUs offer more of a value proposition with prices starting under $130.  These might be the chips to go for if you want an HTPC, though the CPU utilization for HD media decodes is much higher than on similar platforms (i.e., nVidia ION).</p><p>The integrated graphics performance is nothing to get excited about and is really only suitable for business use/HTPC use.  You're still not going to game on this GPU, nor will it be suitable for high performance computing.</p><p>The single most interesting thing about these CPUs are the inclusion of the AES-NI instructions which accelerate AES encrypt/decrypt functions.  When paired with full disk encryption solutions that utilize AES these CPUs see a roughly 15\% decrease in disk performance as opposed to the usual 30\% or so.  Of course, you might just as well buy a quad core CPU and let the extra cores handle encode/decode too.</p><p>Realistically these are going to be used in business-class PCs.  You get decent dual core performance, competent business graphics performance, and integrated support for accelerated AES functions.  They might also be suitable for home brew VPN endpoint solutions with their AES acceleration and relatively low power requirements as well.</p><p>Oh yeah...while these will work in existing Socket LGA 1156 boards (with a BIOS update, of course) you will need a completely new motherboard if you want to take advantage of the integrated graphics capability, as existing boards do not have connectivity from the CPU socket to a video out port.  Of course, if you have an LGA 1156 mainboard already then any of these new Clarkdale CPUs would be a downgrade, so probably no worries there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new Core i5 Clarkdale-based CPUs might be interesting , but they 're overpriced .
These are dual core CPUs with Intel integrated graphics built into the CPU package , and they cost roughly as much as a quad core Lynfield ( Core i5-750 ) or AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU , both of which will trounce it in any benchmark .
They are somewhat based on the Nehalem architecture , but they moved the memory controller off of the CPU core ( while leaving it on the CPU package ) introducing more latency and lower memory bandwidth.The Core i3 CPUs offer more of a value proposition with prices starting under $ 130 .
These might be the chips to go for if you want an HTPC , though the CPU utilization for HD media decodes is much higher than on similar platforms ( i.e. , nVidia ION ) .The integrated graphics performance is nothing to get excited about and is really only suitable for business use/HTPC use .
You 're still not going to game on this GPU , nor will it be suitable for high performance computing.The single most interesting thing about these CPUs are the inclusion of the AES-NI instructions which accelerate AES encrypt/decrypt functions .
When paired with full disk encryption solutions that utilize AES these CPUs see a roughly 15 \ % decrease in disk performance as opposed to the usual 30 \ % or so .
Of course , you might just as well buy a quad core CPU and let the extra cores handle encode/decode too.Realistically these are going to be used in business-class PCs .
You get decent dual core performance , competent business graphics performance , and integrated support for accelerated AES functions .
They might also be suitable for home brew VPN endpoint solutions with their AES acceleration and relatively low power requirements as well.Oh yeah...while these will work in existing Socket LGA 1156 boards ( with a BIOS update , of course ) you will need a completely new motherboard if you want to take advantage of the integrated graphics capability , as existing boards do not have connectivity from the CPU socket to a video out port .
Of course , if you have an LGA 1156 mainboard already then any of these new Clarkdale CPUs would be a downgrade , so probably no worries there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new Core i5 Clarkdale-based CPUs might be interesting, but they're overpriced.
These are dual core CPUs with Intel integrated graphics built into the CPU package, and they cost roughly as much as a quad core Lynfield (Core i5-750) or AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU, both of which will trounce it in any benchmark.
They are somewhat based on the Nehalem architecture, but they moved the memory controller off of the CPU core (while leaving it on the CPU package) introducing more latency and lower memory bandwidth.The Core i3 CPUs offer more of a value proposition with prices starting under $130.
These might be the chips to go for if you want an HTPC, though the CPU utilization for HD media decodes is much higher than on similar platforms (i.e., nVidia ION).The integrated graphics performance is nothing to get excited about and is really only suitable for business use/HTPC use.
You're still not going to game on this GPU, nor will it be suitable for high performance computing.The single most interesting thing about these CPUs are the inclusion of the AES-NI instructions which accelerate AES encrypt/decrypt functions.
When paired with full disk encryption solutions that utilize AES these CPUs see a roughly 15\% decrease in disk performance as opposed to the usual 30\% or so.
Of course, you might just as well buy a quad core CPU and let the extra cores handle encode/decode too.Realistically these are going to be used in business-class PCs.
You get decent dual core performance, competent business graphics performance, and integrated support for accelerated AES functions.
They might also be suitable for home brew VPN endpoint solutions with their AES acceleration and relatively low power requirements as well.Oh yeah...while these will work in existing Socket LGA 1156 boards (with a BIOS update, of course) you will need a completely new motherboard if you want to take advantage of the integrated graphics capability, as existing boards do not have connectivity from the CPU socket to a video out port.
Of course, if you have an LGA 1156 mainboard already then any of these new Clarkdale CPUs would be a downgrade, so probably no worries there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639336</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>DrMrLordX</author>
	<datestamp>1262610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, ATI/AMD does not make LGA1156 or LGA1366 motherboard chipsets.  Nobody but Intel does, in fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , ATI/AMD does not make LGA1156 or LGA1366 motherboard chipsets .
Nobody but Intel does , in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, ATI/AMD does not make LGA1156 or LGA1366 motherboard chipsets.
Nobody but Intel does, in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641046</id>
	<title>Re:Not that different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody put this in an faq on gamefaqs.</p><p>Deciphering weapons in Borderlands is easier than this.</p><p>Ridiculous...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody put this in an faq on gamefaqs.Deciphering weapons in Borderlands is easier than this.Ridiculous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody put this in an faq on gamefaqs.Deciphering weapons in Borderlands is easier than this.Ridiculous...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648764</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1262610960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But note that AMD will do the same with Fusion, just much later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But note that AMD will do the same with Fusion , just much later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But note that AMD will do the same with Fusion, just much later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</id>
	<title>Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262602200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grrr<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I wish Intel would go back to their system of giving new names to new chips then adding a MHz (and if that's not enough, maybe a cache size and number of cores) to distinguish them, rather than using a weird combination new names (for their top-tier chips) and old names (for their low-end gear).</p><p>I only just realized that Pentium no longer means "crappy NetBurst", but now means "low end C2D". And later this month, there will be "Pentiums" and even "Celerons" built on the same architecture as the i5. How do you let your friends know that the "Pentium" is either a worthless, power-hungry dinosaur; or a cheap version of the i5? Should people memorize the chip serial numbers? Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grrr ... I wish Intel would go back to their system of giving new names to new chips then adding a MHz ( and if that 's not enough , maybe a cache size and number of cores ) to distinguish them , rather than using a weird combination new names ( for their top-tier chips ) and old names ( for their low-end gear ) .I only just realized that Pentium no longer means " crappy NetBurst " , but now means " low end C2D " .
And later this month , there will be " Pentiums " and even " Celerons " built on the same architecture as the i5 .
How do you let your friends know that the " Pentium " is either a worthless , power-hungry dinosaur ; or a cheap version of the i5 ?
Should people memorize the chip serial numbers ?
Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grrr ... I wish Intel would go back to their system of giving new names to new chips then adding a MHz (and if that's not enough, maybe a cache size and number of cores) to distinguish them, rather than using a weird combination new names (for their top-tier chips) and old names (for their low-end gear).I only just realized that Pentium no longer means "crappy NetBurst", but now means "low end C2D".
And later this month, there will be "Pentiums" and even "Celerons" built on the same architecture as the i5.
How do you let your friends know that the "Pentium" is either a worthless, power-hungry dinosaur; or a cheap version of the i5?
Should people memorize the chip serial numbers?
Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641626</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell...</title>
	<author>wdebruij</author>
	<datestamp>1262624460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Core 2 Quad made so much more sense.</p><p>How much does Intel pay its marketeers? Is that in bananas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Core 2 Quad made so much more sense.How much does Intel pay its marketeers ?
Is that in bananas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Core 2 Quad made so much more sense.How much does Intel pay its marketeers?
Is that in bananas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640126</id>
	<title>only have 1 x16 + DMI IS bad as boards with usb 3.</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262617560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only having 1 x16 + DMI IS bad as boards with usb 3.0 / sata 600 have to cut pci-e lanes or use pcie switches to have the bandwidth to run them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only having 1 x16 + DMI IS bad as boards with usb 3.0 / sata 600 have to cut pci-e lanes or use pcie switches to have the bandwidth to run them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only having 1 x16 + DMI IS bad as boards with usb 3.0 / sata 600 have to cut pci-e lanes or use pcie switches to have the bandwidth to run them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640286</id>
	<title>Nvidia does a real thing, Intel is fake</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262618760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or, being a journalist, he uses a Mac and he has purchased the i950/945 based scandals from Apple.</p><p>Trust me on that, Apple figured they made the biggest mistake by trusting to Intel's "graphics". There are games who has to carry "Intel graphics based Macs aren't supported".</p><p>Imagine, you fix the endian issue, claim to have "best opengl" and you base your OS to GPU acceleration features. Some CPU monopoly who you stupidly relied on as a single vendor offers you a graphics solution and your "living room computer" (Mini) can't even display Cover flow on iTunes.</p><p>If I stay on Apple brand and figure out there is no way a Quad Core Intel CPU is planned in it, I may switch to Mac Mini (Nvidia 9400M) from a Quad G5. I was that impressed with the performance, at least the DX/OpenGL feature support from the GPU. On the other hand, my cousin ended up with almost no games on "white" Macbook. They told him "Black" one needed to play games. Guess what the White has? Intel GPU. Black, Nvidia.</p><p>As early as today, I can watch 1080p youtube videos with 4-6 \% CPU load with a very little load to GPU too. If I want to play a game, everything is supported, there is no "supported games" list. This GPU (!) decision by Intel will do nothing than further drive people to AMD/ATI. Add the insane pricing of i5/i7 too, in this economy, where business guys are happily using netbooks at cafes. Ignore the hype, these are very serious mistakes of INTEL. By GPU/CPU integration, they may trigger a MS like situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or , being a journalist , he uses a Mac and he has purchased the i950/945 based scandals from Apple.Trust me on that , Apple figured they made the biggest mistake by trusting to Intel 's " graphics " .
There are games who has to carry " Intel graphics based Macs are n't supported " .Imagine , you fix the endian issue , claim to have " best opengl " and you base your OS to GPU acceleration features .
Some CPU monopoly who you stupidly relied on as a single vendor offers you a graphics solution and your " living room computer " ( Mini ) ca n't even display Cover flow on iTunes.If I stay on Apple brand and figure out there is no way a Quad Core Intel CPU is planned in it , I may switch to Mac Mini ( Nvidia 9400M ) from a Quad G5 .
I was that impressed with the performance , at least the DX/OpenGL feature support from the GPU .
On the other hand , my cousin ended up with almost no games on " white " Macbook .
They told him " Black " one needed to play games .
Guess what the White has ?
Intel GPU .
Black , Nvidia.As early as today , I can watch 1080p youtube videos with 4-6 \ % CPU load with a very little load to GPU too .
If I want to play a game , everything is supported , there is no " supported games " list .
This GPU ( !
) decision by Intel will do nothing than further drive people to AMD/ATI .
Add the insane pricing of i5/i7 too , in this economy , where business guys are happily using netbooks at cafes .
Ignore the hype , these are very serious mistakes of INTEL .
By GPU/CPU integration , they may trigger a MS like situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or, being a journalist, he uses a Mac and he has purchased the i950/945 based scandals from Apple.Trust me on that, Apple figured they made the biggest mistake by trusting to Intel's "graphics".
There are games who has to carry "Intel graphics based Macs aren't supported".Imagine, you fix the endian issue, claim to have "best opengl" and you base your OS to GPU acceleration features.
Some CPU monopoly who you stupidly relied on as a single vendor offers you a graphics solution and your "living room computer" (Mini) can't even display Cover flow on iTunes.If I stay on Apple brand and figure out there is no way a Quad Core Intel CPU is planned in it, I may switch to Mac Mini (Nvidia 9400M) from a Quad G5.
I was that impressed with the performance, at least the DX/OpenGL feature support from the GPU.
On the other hand, my cousin ended up with almost no games on "white" Macbook.
They told him "Black" one needed to play games.
Guess what the White has?
Intel GPU.
Black, Nvidia.As early as today, I can watch 1080p youtube videos with 4-6 \% CPU load with a very little load to GPU too.
If I want to play a game, everything is supported, there is no "supported games" list.
This GPU (!
) decision by Intel will do nothing than further drive people to AMD/ATI.
Add the insane pricing of i5/i7 too, in this economy, where business guys are happily using netbooks at cafes.
Ignore the hype, these are very serious mistakes of INTEL.
By GPU/CPU integration, they may trigger a MS like situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640204</id>
	<title>Apple better not use this gpu as it is slower 9400</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262618100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple better not use this gpu as it is slower then the 9400m and much slower then the newer 9400m gen 2.</p><p>apple has to much in to the gpu / cuda to go back to Intel GMA POS.</p><p>and if they do intel is just asking for people to user mac os x86. Come on a $1200 aio with this? $1500 - $1700 laptops with this and 13" / 15" screens? a $800 desktop with this. When you get a core i7 (920) 5770 ati video 6gb ram 1TB HD and more for $1000 - $1200. Apple better not even think of this at $800+.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple better not use this gpu as it is slower then the 9400m and much slower then the newer 9400m gen 2.apple has to much in to the gpu / cuda to go back to Intel GMA POS.and if they do intel is just asking for people to user mac os x86 .
Come on a $ 1200 aio with this ?
$ 1500 - $ 1700 laptops with this and 13 " / 15 " screens ?
a $ 800 desktop with this .
When you get a core i7 ( 920 ) 5770 ati video 6gb ram 1TB HD and more for $ 1000 - $ 1200 .
Apple better not even think of this at $ 800 + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple better not use this gpu as it is slower then the 9400m and much slower then the newer 9400m gen 2.apple has to much in to the gpu / cuda to go back to Intel GMA POS.and if they do intel is just asking for people to user mac os x86.
Come on a $1200 aio with this?
$1500 - $1700 laptops with this and 13" / 15" screens?
a $800 desktop with this.
When you get a core i7 (920) 5770 ati video 6gb ram 1TB HD and more for $1000 - $1200.
Apple better not even think of this at $800+.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643328</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1262631060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh...I just got into this exact discussion yesterday with a friend of mine. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Should people memorize the chip serial numbers? Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days.</p></div><p> That was pretty much our end idea. There's just no categorization in the names anymore. The best you can do is find a processor comparison chart at Tom's and pick one which looks like it will run your specific app well for the price. <br>
&nbsp; <br>It's really unbelievable that we're at this point - there was a time where I was well versed in the specs of each chip and socket. Now, it's a crap shoot when I go to buy a processor. When model numbers and parts of names get reused, and cache sizes and bus speeds change all the time, there's just no good way to keep track of them anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh...I just got into this exact discussion yesterday with a friend of mine .
Should people memorize the chip serial numbers ?
Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days .
That was pretty much our end idea .
There 's just no categorization in the names anymore .
The best you can do is find a processor comparison chart at Tom 's and pick one which looks like it will run your specific app well for the price .
  It 's really unbelievable that we 're at this point - there was a time where I was well versed in the specs of each chip and socket .
Now , it 's a crap shoot when I go to buy a processor .
When model numbers and parts of names get reused , and cache sizes and bus speeds change all the time , there 's just no good way to keep track of them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh...I just got into this exact discussion yesterday with a friend of mine.
Should people memorize the chip serial numbers?
Because that seems to be the only way of figuring out what the chip is these days.
That was pretty much our end idea.
There's just no categorization in the names anymore.
The best you can do is find a processor comparison chart at Tom's and pick one which looks like it will run your specific app well for the price.
  It's really unbelievable that we're at this point - there was a time where I was well versed in the specs of each chip and socket.
Now, it's a crap shoot when I go to buy a processor.
When model numbers and parts of names get reused, and cache sizes and bus speeds change all the time, there's just no good way to keep track of them anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564</id>
	<title>tough day for nvidia stock</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262612760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this, and concluding that the gpu business is doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this , and concluding that the gpu business is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a wsj analyst has to be looking at this, and concluding that the gpu business is doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639068</id>
	<title>Or anything under Linux?</title>
	<author>MacroRodent</author>
	<datestamp>1262606100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the graphics unit a derivative of the notorious Poulsbo (no good open-source Linux support), or of GMA9xx (open drivers on Linux)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the graphics unit a derivative of the notorious Poulsbo ( no good open-source Linux support ) , or of GMA9xx ( open drivers on Linux ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the graphics unit a derivative of the notorious Poulsbo (no good open-source Linux support), or of GMA9xx (open drivers on Linux)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639358</id>
	<title>Re:Intel branding considered harmful</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262610480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? With Pentium it was easy - there was a year or so long break between using this brand for Netburst and for Core architecture. For around 2 years already anything new &amp; under Pentium brand gives you nice, cheap, C2D CPU...perfect in typical laptops. Yes, it's slightly slower, but together with Intel GFX and slow HDDs it doesn't matter.</p><p>Intel of course wasn't <i>really</i> promoting those CPUs, wishing from you to overpaid for full C2D, but they weren't secretive about them either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
With Pentium it was easy - there was a year or so long break between using this brand for Netburst and for Core architecture .
For around 2 years already anything new &amp; under Pentium brand gives you nice , cheap , C2D CPU...perfect in typical laptops .
Yes , it 's slightly slower , but together with Intel GFX and slow HDDs it does n't matter.Intel of course was n't really promoting those CPUs , wishing from you to overpaid for full C2D , but they were n't secretive about them either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
With Pentium it was easy - there was a year or so long break between using this brand for Netburst and for Core architecture.
For around 2 years already anything new &amp; under Pentium brand gives you nice, cheap, C2D CPU...perfect in typical laptops.
Yes, it's slightly slower, but together with Intel GFX and slow HDDs it doesn't matter.Intel of course wasn't really promoting those CPUs, wishing from you to overpaid for full C2D, but they weren't secretive about them either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639934</id>
	<title>Repeat after me: A monopoly isn't illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monopolies are only illegal when you abuse them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopolies are only illegal when you abuse them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopolies are only illegal when you abuse them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30653270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30646242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30651630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_0754250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641046
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30646242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30644026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30641626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30648342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30638976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30653270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30643248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_0754250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30639760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30651630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_0754250.30640588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
