<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://hothardware.com/cs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Intel Processors</title><link>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/37.aspx</link><description>Intel Processor Discussions</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650</title><link>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/thread/290075.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:06:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">ba4e517a-01ef-48a6-b096-821b95afe388:290075</guid><dc:creator>Temujin</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/thread/290075.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=37&amp;PostID=290075</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;Good and simple enough article. You may have already noticed, but I think your Power Consumption graph has the color designation backwards. The key at the bottom has it opposite of your paragraphs information. :) A quick simple fix. Thanks for the information.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650</title><link>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/thread/289153.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:03:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">ba4e517a-01ef-48a6-b096-821b95afe388:289153</guid><dc:creator>News</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/thread/289153.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=37&amp;PostID=289153</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;br /&gt;                &lt;div class="newsText" id="dvPreComment"&gt;&lt;font face="Verdana" size="2"&gt;&lt;a class="genlink" id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_ArticleList_ctl01_HlThumbnail" href="http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX9650__Yorkfield_Has_Landed"&gt;&lt;img style="BORDER-RIGHT:black 1px solid;BORDER-TOP:black 1px solid;BORDER-LEFT:black 1px solid;WIDTH:100px;BORDER-BOTTOM:black 1px solid;HEIGHT:75px;" hspace="3" src="http://www.hothardware.com/thumbnail/thumb_qx9650.jpg" align="left" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;After many months of trickling out information regarding Penryn and Intel’s 45nm manufacturing process, we’re finally able to offer up some firsthand information regarding Yorkfield, Intel’s quad-core, desktop Penryn derivative.&amp;#160; We recently got our hands on a new Yorkfield-based Core 2 Extreme QX9650 processor and were able to run it through a host of in-house benchmarks, monitor power consumption, and overclock it as well.&amp;#160; Click the link below to see just how the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 performed and whether or not Intel’s 45nm manufacturing process is all the company has claimed it is cracked up to be...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX9650__Yorkfield_Has_Landed"&gt;&lt;font face="Verdana" size="2"&gt;Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 - Yorkfield Has Landed&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;                &lt;div class="newsTextBody" id="dvBody"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;                &lt;div class="newsText" id="dvComment"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>