But what about server quads, should they should work the same? That might be the only way to get those penryn quads to desktops soon.(other than the extreme edition)
But what about server quads, should they should work the same? That might be the only way to get those penryn quads to desktops soon.(other than the extreme edition)
I searched a bit on Intel's website and on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no Quad-Core Xeon 45 nm using LGA 775 sockets, so at first glance, the answer would be no.
Ok, here are my scores. Few extra things:
■I got a 8800GTS (G92) video card
■I'm running Vista 64 Ultimate
■I didn't tweak anything yet, everything is default (for example, my RAM runs at 6-6-6-18 instead of 4-4-4-15)
■I didn't shutdown any background services (anti-virus, ...), ...
SM 2.0:5778
SM 3.0:5543
CPU:2770
Overall:12236
If you want a direct comparison, here is the link.
Compared to other higher scores for similar system (Same CPU, GPU, OS, ...), I noticed the main difference was the SM 3.0 score by ~150 at most. Why .... no idea 😛.
"Curious thing is that my version of PCWizard 2008 recognized my CPU as being a E8400 so I guess they really are the same."
Now, I do find that interesting.
I re-did the PCWizard 2008 "test" with the latest version I could find on the web (1.84, dated from February 2008) and I still get the same reported E8400 😛.
I searched a bit on Intel's website and on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no Quad-Core Xeon 45 nm using LGA 775 sockets, so at first glance, the answer would be no.
The pricing I have seen from retailers is around $500-$600 - not bad for a 2.83Ghz quad-core Yorkfield with a Xeon name on it, considering the QX9650 is only 0.17 GHz faster and is twice the price.
I searched a bit on Intel's website and on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no Quad-Core Xeon 45 nm using LGA 775 sockets, so at first glance, the answer would be no.