Quote Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner View Post
I'm only providing future owners of this chip all the information I can provide... so they know what to expect from the chip. Of course, I'm quite concerned about this "myth" as well, and that's why I'd like to try and see... although I doubt anyone will buy both this and a Q9450 chip at the same time.

Edit: Oh, and I'm quoting what another user asked before:



Yeah... I'd like to know that as well. I'm a guy of actual pictures and numbers, not of statistical talks.

And by the way, since we are going with a "myth" from the 65nm quads, let's go back and look at the 65nm quads, yeah?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...&enterthread=y

After reading that, here's what I gather: Xeon might require less voltage than their desktop counterparts to run stable at the same clock speed, thus making them potentially better overclockers. Also Xeon can withstand higher thermal than their desktop counterparts. This has actually been proven in the case of E3110 versus E8400 processors, so I'd say that this is probably true.

And... back to google.


Yes you are right. He did not have any real benchmarks to back up his claiming, also yes that is right as it is a server processor is requires less voltage and it has to be much more efficient once it has to contain heat as it will work 24/7. So what I have yet to make my mind is, it gives much more stability, less voltage, better thermal compound than desktops right? It must have some hidden weakness processing things not related.

Servers processors always have been very good for reliability and much more expensive too. The things may be changing on the right direction, not sure though.

Metroid.