On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Mark Hahn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hahn@mcmaster.ca">hahn@mcmaster.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'll get an answer: is there any remarkable difference<br>
in FPU performance between Extreme and non-Extreme<br>
Intel CPUs, e.g. QX9650 and Q9650?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
of course not - the chips are the same inside, so deliver<br>
exactly the performance you expect from their operating clock.<br>
same cache, same clock, same fsb, so same performance...<br>
<br>
as far as I can seem the only difference is that the X<br>
is an older stepping, has a higher TDP and lower thermal spec.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
And unlocked FSB multipliers.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
well, in the HPC world, correctness is normally paramount,<br>
so no form of overclocking is considered much...</blockquote><div></div><div>I didn't say it was, but since no one mentioned that fact I wanted to highlight it, since it's pretty much the only significant difference for the non-HPC world. </div>
<div></div><div>Best regards</div>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.