How Reputable A Seller are they? I Ask because i was looking at Xeons and their CPU Z Screenshot has Intel Core i3/i5/i7 in the screenshot where it should say Xeon.
How Reputable Is I Computer Parts International on Ebay?
- Thread starter Kneelbeforezod
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
Feedback Page
CPU In Question
In Contrast a QFQG for sale by HWTrade shows a CPUZ Screeenshott that says Intel Xeon E5 v3
CPU In Question
In Contrast a QFQG for sale by HWTrade shows a CPUZ Screeenshott that says Intel Xeon E5 v3
Well, its strange, considering the fact that the cpu-z version appears to be the same. But there is one thing I was thinking about. What if the cpu version is not the same? If you look at the HW-Info screenshot, three different spec codes are listed, QFQG, QG7R and QG** something. There are other people who now this better, but I think QFQG has x35 single core multiplier (I have seen it before), but HW-Info somehow does not know, what is under the lid. The one HW-Trade is selling has a multiplier of x33.
Here is another QFQG one:
XEON E5 2695 v3 QS why buy i7-5930K 5820K 5960X 6950X 6850K 6900K 6800K ?
Its max multi is also x35.
From this info I think, that the "slower" one is something QG*, but as it was remarked, we can't know it for sure.
Here is another QFQG one:
XEON E5 2695 v3 QS why buy i7-5930K 5820K 5960X 6950X 6850K 6900K 6800K ?
Its max multi is also x35.
From this info I think, that the "slower" one is something QG*, but as it was remarked, we can't know it for sure.
Last edited:
Do you have an opinion in General on QFQG 2695s? Patriot says not to get any QFxx chip of a 14C Die.
However in a Completed Bloommax listing for 2 QFQGs it appears the QFQG might have better performance than the Production SR1XG:
I bought two E5-2667 V3 ES cpu's QEYA that are HCC dies with 35MB of L3 each. Apparently they are ~14 core cpu's, according to the core numbers displayed by a couple of programs in Linux plus a couple of hardware programs in Windows, with all but 8 cores disabled.
They have been %100 reliable as for as I can tell, base clock of 2.9 Ghz , all core boost of 3.0 GHz and single core boost of 3.2 GHz.
But they are in my home workstation that I do most of my daily stuff on, nothing mission critical.
From what I see the lower steppings are fine for home/experimental/play computers and they are relatively cheap and would last a long time for home use where they would not ever see the 24/7/365 stress from being in a data center.
They have been %100 reliable as for as I can tell, base clock of 2.9 Ghz , all core boost of 3.0 GHz and single core boost of 3.2 GHz.
But they are in my home workstation that I do most of my daily stuff on, nothing mission critical.
From what I see the lower steppings are fine for home/experimental/play computers and they are relatively cheap and would last a long time for home use where they would not ever see the 24/7/365 stress from being in a data center.
I don't know, but probably I'd choose the safer way. If I am right, QFQG has slightly higher multis (it has to be confirmed by someone, who actualy owns one, as from the HW-Info screenshoots only the max is obvious, so no all core is known), so it is no wonder if its performance is also higher.