<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Building my Hackintosh - Part 1: CPU Analysis</title>
	<link>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/</link>
	<description>Gadgets, Media and Technology</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: taozero.com &#187; CPU Price-Performance Analysis - Nov 2007</title>
		<link>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-27</link>
		<author>taozero.com &#187; CPU Price-Performance Analysis - Nov 2007</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>[...] CPUs. I added to that my previous data from the March Xbit-labs benchmarks, which I posted on my previous CPU analysis post. I have included Intel CPUs only, as my current focus is builing n Intel based [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] CPUs. I added to that my previous data from the March Xbit-labs benchmarks, which I posted on my previous CPU analysis post. I have included Intel CPUs only, as my current focus is builing n Intel based [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ariel</title>
		<link>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-4</link>
		<author>Ariel</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>This is certainly a possibility. The difference between the 4300 and 4400 is additional 8% in performance, for 17% more. Arguably, those 17% are only $20, which is negligible in the overall system cost - but once you apply this logic to all of the components this tends to blow the system cost.

In this case its a possible option, but when trying to find the "Value" proposition, the 4300 is good enough for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is certainly a possibility. The difference between the 4300 and 4400 is additional 8% in performance, for 17% more. Arguably, those 17% are only $20, which is negligible in the overall system cost - but once you apply this logic to all of the components this tends to blow the system cost.</p>
<p>In this case its a possible option, but when trying to find the &#8220;Value&#8221; proposition, the 4300 is good enough for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doron</title>
		<link>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-3</link>
		<author>Doron</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://taozero.com/homebrew-hackintosh/building-my-hackintosh-part-1-cpu-analysis/#comment-3</guid>
		<description>I don't understand why you chose the Intel 4300. it's clearly visible from the Xbit tests, that the 4400 has a much better performance for a mere 20 bucks difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand why you chose the Intel 4300. it&#8217;s clearly visible from the Xbit tests, that the 4400 has a much better performance for a mere 20 bucks difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
