| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lither
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 1362
Location: Taiwan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugo929
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 6163
Location: China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lither
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 1362
Location: Taiwan
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| hugo929 wrote: | | how should we call them? fake or official remark? who knows? |
IMHO, the Q323 and Q0907 are not fake , because there are remarked to a lower speed...
the Q0907 is slightly different to the
Q323 and Q056
the Q323 and Q056 are appeared not-an-official-documented spec
at least i could not find the Q323 and Q056 in the "pentium processor specificity update "
but the Q0907 is an official documented spec
http://www.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/qit/
i just wonder if there any non-remarked Q0907 existed
i have post a wanted thread for the other Q0907's picture but havent receive a reply yet.
Last edited by lither on Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FDIV
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 740
Location: Ohio, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice chip. It looks like remarking production chips that failed at production speed to qualification samples may have been a standard practice for Intel. I also wonder if the same q-spec was used for remarked failed production chips as for chips produced originally for qualification sample use. Certainly most of my qualification sample chips are not production chips that failed to meet their marked speed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
