[Beowulf] FPU performance of Intel CPUs
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Tiago Marques a28427 at ua.ptMon Apr 6 02:41:28 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] FPU performance of Intel CPUs
- Next message: [Beowulf] FPU performance of Intel CPUs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Mark Hahn <hahn at mcmaster.ca> wrote: > > I'll get an answer: is there any remarkable difference >>>> in FPU performance between Extreme and non-Extreme >>>> Intel CPUs, e.g. QX9650 and Q9650? >>>> >>> >>> of course not - the chips are the same inside, so deliver >>> exactly the performance you expect from their operating clock. >>> same cache, same clock, same fsb, so same performance... >>> >>> as far as I can seem the only difference is that the X >>> is an older stepping, has a higher TDP and lower thermal spec. >>> >>> And unlocked FSB multipliers. >> > > well, in the HPC world, correctness is normally paramount, > so no form of overclocking is considered much... 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. Best regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20090406/09b7d4ab/attachment.html
- Previous message: [Beowulf] FPU performance of Intel CPUs
- Next message: [Beowulf] FPU performance of Intel CPUs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
