Published on 18th April 2007 by
Originally Posted by articleWe begged, pleased and argued
Originally Posted by articleSince the 45nm process is still immature but these CPUs are offering a performance that will be exactly the same as on desktop.
Originally Posted by JADSOut of slight curiosity could you overclock a QX6700 to 3.33GHz (on a 1333Mhz FSB) and compare the quad core Penryn numbers clock-for-clock?
Originally Posted by Mary JoThis doesn't read correctly.
Originally Posted by DougEdeyYou did what now?
Those figures do look nice, but the how much is applicable to the larger L2 and how much to the higher FSB
Originally Posted by BindibadgiWe wanted to but they actually wouldnt let us play with the systems. This was our exact argument but they were having none of it.
Originally Posted by JADSAs Tim mentioned you can replicate a 3.33GHz Kentsfield in the lab and do a direct comparison so it should give a better indication of the potential performance improvement.
Penryn good, Nehalem better :)?
Originally Posted by mclean007And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year.
Originally Posted by mclean007And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year. Wow a new architecture running at higher FSB and higher clock gives a better performance...who would have guessed?! They really should have had Penryn at stock, QX6800 at stock, and then either Penryn at 11 x 266 or QX6800 @ 10 x 333. Without that, the numbers are meaningless!
Originally Posted by Grinch123456If this is to be believed, AMD better do something fast.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
30th June 2016
29th June 2016
27th June 2016
© Copyright bit-tech