Any tests to show this? Could it be possible that the 2.26GHz model can clock up to 2.66GHz? Since 3.33GHz-2.93GHz= .4GHz difference.
So does this mean 2.26GHz + .4GHz = 2.66GHz.
2.66GHz + .4GHz = 3.06GHz.
I thought this was interesting: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/everything_you_need_know_about_nehalems_turbo_mode
The shot tells us that you’ll be able to set each individual limit for Turbo Mode. So, if the game you’re playing is single-threaded and you have a lot of thermal headroom, you could go from the stock 22x multiplier to, say, 30x and take your 2.93GHz Core all the way to 4GHz. If you think your heatsink is up to it, you can then say, set your system to Turbo at 25x or 3.5GHz when running two cores are under a heavy load. The same is done all the way up to four cores.
Taking that into consideration under windows, could the Mac Pro line be downclocked on sheet but infact should be much faster?
This also questions the benchmarks where turbo boost was not used? Or even utilized?
So does this mean 2.26GHz + .4GHz = 2.66GHz.
2.66GHz + .4GHz = 3.06GHz.
I thought this was interesting: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/everything_you_need_know_about_nehalems_turbo_mode
The shot tells us that you’ll be able to set each individual limit for Turbo Mode. So, if the game you’re playing is single-threaded and you have a lot of thermal headroom, you could go from the stock 22x multiplier to, say, 30x and take your 2.93GHz Core all the way to 4GHz. If you think your heatsink is up to it, you can then say, set your system to Turbo at 25x or 3.5GHz when running two cores are under a heavy load. The same is done all the way up to four cores.
Taking that into consideration under windows, could the Mac Pro line be downclocked on sheet but infact should be much faster?
This also questions the benchmarks where turbo boost was not used? Or even utilized?