Difference Between Xeon versus Desktop?

[RunawayPrisoner]

I have seen Singaporean reviews of the Q9450, and most of them could only hit 480MHz and bench at 475MHz max or something. I'm running mine 475MHz 24/7 now, though, and there's the difference. Here's the source:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...&postcount=137

And to think I benched mine at 490MHz FSB... wow...

Edit: There's the 1500 points in the difference between 3.80GHz and 3.90GHz as proof for you, too. If anything, I think these Xeons would clock better and fare lower voltages than the actual Q9450. Sure, there might be a difference in CPU score (different boards, maybe?), but the question is... can they run at 3.80GHz or even 3.60GHz stable 24/7 when their max stable FSB is at 475MHz on an Asus Striker II? And versus a budget G35 board?

Edit 2: Just realized... Vista versus XP. 600 points in CPU difference. Now I'm confident that there would be none at all. Heck... I dare them to be able to clock at 490MHz and boot into Vista stable enough to achieve a full run of 3DMark06. To me, it seems like Vista just requires a hell of a lot more voltage (and effort) to even boot... whereas you can sail smoothly into XP anytime. I'm going to try installing 3DMark06 onto XP and see what happens.

[Nebulus]

I have seen Singaporean reviews of the Q9450, and most of them could only hit 480MHz and bench at 475MHz max or something. I'm running mine 475MHz 24/7 now, though, and there's the difference. Here's the source:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...&postcount=137

And to think I benched mine at 490MHz FSB... wow...

Edit: There's the 1500 points in the difference between 3.80GHz and 3.90GHz as proof for you, too. If anything, I think these Xeons would clock better and fare lower voltages than the actual Q9450. Sure, there might be a difference in CPU score (different boards, maybe?), but the question is... can they run at 3.80GHz or even 3.60GHz stable 24/7 when their max stable FSB is at 475MHz on an Asus Striker II? And versus a budget G35 board?

I'm not really questioning the overclockability of each nor their voltages and temps. If you ran your x3350 at 400 x 8 and benched some games and then swapped out your cpu for a Q9450 at 400 x 8 and benched some games, would the results be the same? That is my question. Given that every single condition and piece of hardware would be the same, I would think they would score the same, but the article is saying otherwise. If course the article is comparing the 65 nm Q6600 with its equivalent 65 nm xeon. Still, its a question worth investigating don't you guys think?