Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Xeon x3350 better than x3360?!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Xeon x3350 better than x3360?!

    Hi, I just bought a Xeon x3360 for $70 to put into my xfx 780i motherboard.
    Looking on Passmark, it shows the x3350 with a score of 4493 and the x3360 a score of 4005.
    How is this possible? Looking at the stats for these two processors, the only difference seems to be the 2.83ghz with a Multiplier of x8.5 for the x3360 and 2.67ghz with a Multiplier of x8 for the x3350.
    The innital sale price for the x3350 was $316, with the price of the x3360 at $530 at release.
    So, looking at all this info, why was the x3360's score almost 500 points lower than the x3350?
    Anyone have any clue? Should I have purchased one of the x3350's?




    "Work is for people who can't play video games" -Billy Mitchell
    Tags: x3350 x3360 xeon 780i
  • #2
    The CPUs are very close.

    There was a small error in the new charts which we have fixed up, but the X3350 is still being ranked as 0.7% higher.

    These Xeons were not high volume CPUs so we don't have a lot of samples. Meaning the margin for error in the charts is most probably higher than the difference in performance.

    Doesn't really make sense for Intel to have released 2 near identical low volume CPUs which are so close in performance.

    Comment

    • #3
      Should I upload a benchmark using the Passmark software?

      XFX 780i w/ northbridge fan, Xeon x3360 w/ Zalman Pure Copper (not-OC'ed), 8gb HyperX DDR2 w/ HyperX Fan, 3xBFG GTX 280 3-way sli, 4/30gb Ocz Vertex 1 Turbo SSD in Raid-0, Antech 1050w PSU, Visiontek 450watt Juicebox.
      Not the newest or beefiest system on our LAN, but it still has some omph.

      The Intel White Papers on the x3350 and x3360 look nearly spot on with the Q9450 and Q9550.

      Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
      The CPUs are very close.

      There was a small error in the new charts which we have fixed up, but the X3350 is still being ranked as 0.7% higher.

      These Xeons were not high volume CPUs so we don't have a lot of samples. Meaning the margin for error in the charts is most probably higher than the difference in performance.

      Don't really make sense for Intel to have released 2 near identical low volume CPUs which are so close in performance.

      Comment

      • #4
        The more results people upload the more accurate the charts will be. This is especially the case for rare CPUs like these two Xeons.

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X