Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
it also shows that Intel Xeon X5680 @ 3.33GHz is slower than Intel Xeon X5670 @ 2.93GHz which doesnt make sense.
 
Don't rely on those numbers. They are on different hardware, there is no indication of what else was running during tests and the number of samples for Xeons is tiny compared to those of consumer parts.
 
Although 980x and W3680 have same CPU performance, ECC RAM used by W3680 is 2 wait states slower than regular RAM used by the 980x, all other things being equal. And if they used registered ECC RAM it might be slower still.
 
Although 980x and W3680 have same CPU performance, ECC RAM used by W3680 is 2 wait states slower than regular RAM used by the 980x, all other things being equal. And if they used registered ECC RAM it might be slower still.

So why does apple bother using server tech which is slower instead of opting out for desktop chips/memory?
 
So why does apple bother using server tech which is slower instead of opting out for desktop chips/memory?

Because stability is more important than out and out speed.

It's a workstation, NOT a overclockers dream.

Besides the performance difference of the CPUs are at max 1-2% from benchmarks i've seen, ECC vs non-ECC etc so that graph has ALOT of explaining to do.
 
LOL @ getting worked up over 1,500 Pts. in a synthetic test where one has hundreds of samples and the other a dozen. Not to mention a benchmark that makes not indication about hardware and overclocking.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.