AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs. Intel core i5-750

[dantoshi]

Which of these processors is the best one?

 

[sighQ2]

All I'm saying is everybody has a price and intel have very deep pockets.

AMD nut as I am, if intel threw enough money at me I would quickly change my opinion. Who wouldn't?

Intel can afford it, and they have a history of this kind of thing. To me, it is pretty implausible that they are not buying reviews, reviewers and websites too.

😀 😀 😀 😍

 

[randomizer]

The problem with your argument, sighQ2, is that it hangs on the assumption that sites are being paid off by Intel. Until you can actually find some evidence to show that this is the case, your argument is merely designed to fit a "world view."

If Lost Circuits is very accurate.

If they are?

and LC is perhaps the only truly reliable site on the net, and does very thorough reviews. They are described as a trusted site - unlike MOST others.

Who says they do thorough reviews? (I liked their SSD articles myself but that's beside the point) Who describes them as trusted and who describes other sites as untrustworthy?

What you call Reason, I call Brainwash Propaganda at the hands of the King of Antitrust.

Well that's your personal opinion, in the same way Elmo's personal opinion is that your "Brainwash Propaganda" is "Reason." The issue here is that whichever of these two viewpoints you take will warp every piece of evidence you see in order to fit your opinion.

Thank for this handy ref list of least reliable, most biased, oft considered paid spintel sites, and generally considered grossly biased and/or incompetent. All great places to be mislead.

"Generally considered" implies a majority, however I'm willing to bet that the majority don't agree with you.

Right now, on the home page here, there are several spintel articles and nothing AMD.

I wouldn't expect much about AMD until they actually launch a new product... That's not evidence of money changing hands any more than your posts here are evidence that AMD is sending representatives to this forum to swing people's opinions. The evidence can and will be interpreted, not objectively, but in whatever way suits the reader's views because it simply isn't concrete enough.

I know someone who as a teenager refused to accept that Santa didn't exist because there was evidence showing that his parents weren't wealthy enough to afford his presents. This is weak evidence, because it doesn't matter if it doesn't seem like his parents can afford presents, they still may have bought them and Santa still may be false.

 

[sighQ2]

You may as well just start posting biscuit recipes.

That wouldn't be any more out of place than the illogical nonsense you keep spouting.

seems u be a perpetual flaming critic w naught to say of your own - there is nothing of you in your posts - you apparently don't exist - perhaps this is the attention you crave, yet you know not how or why, which leaves you spinning in repeating same thing over and over, dependent on others to elucidate to trigger almost anything from your barren unemotional shut down place of depression. you probably can't hear this either - and that is sad. and my motive is not insult; but what is your motive, critic?

 

[sighQ2]

Where do we find what you would call real evidence?

Personal experience is not something to discount. You can say what you like; and as I travel through my day, I come to realizations - out of the air, and I see through, within, and beyond, and thereby know things that apparently lack evidence. Human experience can transcend evidence; but what is learned or discovered is real; and then, in time, more is revealed, and the picture fills in even more. It's a process; and it is not necessary that we limit ourselves to earthly, everyday mundanity in our evolutions.

for instance, the spell checker dislikes the word mundanity. mundane. the spell checker is limited in that it lacks consciousness, expression, aliveness, abstraction. perhaps chad is a spell checker too. Yet I am not prevented from communicating the concept of the killing floor, the everyday useless waste of humanity, or the exploitation of it by a liar and a cheat. The call to prove it is on the law - I only need reject what is known to me as undesirable and a threat to the world I would create.

 

[randomizer]

Where do we find what you would call real evidence?

Well another FTC legal mess would suffice 😀

Personal experience is not something to discount.

I agree, but personal experiences can differ and therefore aren't the best evidence you can use. My own personal experience, for example, still disagrees with you. Considering there is precious other real evidence out there, none of us are going to convince each other of anything and saying things like "you must be stupid if you can't see that <blah blah blah>" is not a very good way of having a discussion.

 

[Chad Boga]

but what is your motive, critic?

To not let egregious lies and insanity, go unchallenged.

 

[Pro Llama]

I am sorry, but the I5 is superior, especially if you set the I5 at the same clock speed as the Phenom which is definitely doable due to the low thermal profile of the I5-many people can actually get up to 4 GHZ with the I5-those benchmarks blow the Phenom II out of the water.

I think you may not have read through most of these discussions on the i5 and 965/955.

A) I5 is superior for some things but inferior in others. It would be fine to say that it is superior in some aspects.
B) Most reviews using an I5 also have turbo mode on, which means that the I5 is not at its stock speed it is overclocked.
C) “many people can actually get up to 4 GHZ with the I5” if you look up the 965 in the review section of tom’s you will see that the review got a 965 to 4.2 and it was stable.
D) “those benchmarks blow the Phenom II out of the water” What benchmarks, are you making assumptions and not thinking about turbo mode.

I am not saying that one or the other is the superior chip. Considering that they perform very close the one that cost the least is the better chip for you. If you can get an I5 for less that is the better chip for you, if someone else can find the 955 for cheaper then that is the better chip for him. If you are just a fanboy of one, buy that chip and don’t post bs with nothing backing it up. AMW1011 did a great job of listing many articles about the two chips and then posted the overall break down of each articles. You may want to read through the full thread. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272741-28-truth-phenom

 

[Chad Boga]

I think you may not have read through most of these discussions on the i5 and 965/955.

A) I5 is superior for some things but inferior in others. It would be fine to say that it is superior in some aspects.
B) Most reviews using an I5 also have turbo mode on, which means that the I5 is not at its stock speed it is overclocked.
C) “many people can actually get up to 4 GHZ with the I5” if you look up the 965 in the review section of tom’s you will see that the review got a 965 to 4.2 and it was stable.
D) “those benchmarks blow the Phenom II out of the water” What benchmarks, are you making assumptions and not thinking about turbo mode.

Turbo mode if part of an I5's stock features, you are not running the chip out of spec by having it turned on or benefitting from that, so your points about being overclocked are wrong.

 

[notty22]

Personal experience is not something to discount. You can say what you like; and as I travel through my day, I come to realizations - out of the air, and I see through, within, and the compiler as used and seen by the untold spoon fed blithering vile contemptuous sheep of a flock known to spintel as witnessed by the souless devoid of INTELigence as read by banaramatec also bear witness to the only actual truthful site Lost circuits who free of unbeknown compiler laden cheating spying immoral . The fanboys, the shills the sheep praying and eating from the plates of the noobs ,running the compiler ,eating up the lies, the powerful govenrment agencies, fts compiler spintel knows what there lying and AMD will prevail.

AMEN !@/quotemsg]

LOL

 

[Pro Llama]

Turbo mode if part of an I5's stock features, you are not running the chip out of spec by having it turned on or benefitting from that, so your points about being overclocked are wrong.

I never said that you were running it out of spec but you are benefitting from it. The chip states that it runs at 2.66GHz but when turbo mode is turned on it is not running at 2.66GHz. Though it was not overclocked manually it is still technically an overclock because it is not running at 2.66GHz. The point is it is not a chip running at 2.66GHz vs. a chip running at 3.4GHz. This is like some one saying that the software that overclocks amd chips isn’t really an over clock because it is done by software.

 

[Chad Boga]

I never said that you were running it out of spec but you are benefitting from it. The chip states that it runs at 2.66GHz but when turbo mode is turned on it is not running at 2.66GHz. Though it was not overclocked manually it is still technically an overclock because it is not running at 2.66GHz. The point is it is not a chip running at 2.66GHz vs. a chip running at 3.4GHz. This is like some one saying that the software that overclocks amd chips isn’t really an over clock because it is done by software.

An overclock is running the chip out of spec, that is why overclocking voids your warranty. Turbo boost isn't running out of spec and doesn't void your warranty.

And what's more, it will be used by both Intel and AMD in future generations, with ever more sophisticated schemes to get the most out of the thermal envelope they are limited to.

 

[BadTrip]

An overclock is running the chip out of spec, that is why overclocking voids your warranty. Turbo boost isn't running out of spec and doesn't void your warranty.

And what's more, it will be used by both Intel and AMD in future generations, with ever more sophisticated schemes to get the most out of the thermal envelope they are limited to.

Watch opinions change when AMD starts doing it. If Intel does it, its cheating. If AMD does it, it's innovation.

Why doesnt the Intel side complaign about AMD ridiculous TDP\ACP scheme?

 

[Chad Boga]

Watch opinions change when AMD starts doing it. If Intel does it, its cheating. If AMD does it, it's innovation.

Why doesnt the Intel side complaign about AMD ridiculous TDP\ACP scheme?

I'm guessing because they don't think consumers take it seriously.

Joe Sixpack would either be completely unaware of TDP as a concern or see the reviews on Anandtech or Tom's Hardware or The Tech Report and see what the power usage and temps of each camps processors are.

Professionals would know that ACP is bullshit.

 

[keithlm]

An overclock is running the chip out of spec, that is why overclocking voids your warranty. Turbo boost isn't running out of spec and doesn't void your warranty.

And what's more, it will be used by both Intel and AMD in future generations, with ever more sophisticated schemes to get the most out of the thermal envelope they are limited to.

It is nice to know that your definition of overclock means running the chip out of spec.

That is not however the world's only definition or even the most popular one. The most popular definition of overclock is when the CPU is running faster than the original frequency it runs at. You are merely pretending that it can't be called "overclock" to make your point. You failed.

And luckily marketing tools like this can be disabled in bios so that everybody isn't required to run it just because some people have the opinion that it is useful for anything other than looking better in benchmarks.

AND BTW: They Intel fanboys DO complain about TDP/ACP. (Just looking at the last two posts shows that.)

 

[Chad Boga]

It is nice to know that your definition of overclock means running the chip out of spec.

That is not however the world's only definition or even the most popular one. The most popular definition of overclock is when the CPU is running faster than the original frequency it runs at. You are merely pretending that it can't be called "overclock" to make your point. You failed.

Keith whilst you are eminently qualified to talk about failure considering your vast personal experience with it, you are once again wrong.

Not only does my definition hold up, but you have conveniently ignored the fact that my definition of not overclocking means running within spec so that you don't void your warranty, whereas your definition would see someone voiding their warranty.

But even leaving aside how misguided you and Jenny and other AMDroids are on this feature, what the hell does it matter anyway in regards to the conversation about whether one buys an i5-750 or a PhII-965/955?

The i5-750 still performs the way it does without any user intervention, so why should anyone buying it care if it's "real speed" is 2.66Ghz or higher?

And luckily marketing tools like this can be disabled in bios so that everybody isn't required to run it just because some people have the opinion that it is useful for anything other than looking better in benchmarks.

Why would anyone choose to disable it, unless they were looking to overclock the bejesus out of the chip.

Just turning it off and running always at 2.66Ghz would be retarded beyond belief.

AND BTW: They Intel fanboys DO complain about TDP/ACP. (Just looking at the last two posts shows that.)

I might have misunderstood BadTrip's post, I thought he meant Intel's marketing arm, but even if you want to refer to people on forums, I only mentioned it in direct response to someone raising it, it is not like I run around in multiple posts talking about it by bringing it into a thread for that thread's first time.

 

[keithlm]

Keith whilst you are eminently qualified to talk about failure considering your vast personal experience with it, you are once again wrong.

Sure.

Like I failed when I mentioned that the 45nm PHII would not take 1.6V to hit 3.6Ghz. Oh wait. I didn't fail there.

Or when I failed because I mentioned that benchmarkers should attempt to run their tests in the best conditions for each brand and not purposefully cripple one brand. Oh wait. I didn't fail there either.

Sorry... I don't seem to have as much experience at failing as you do.

Not only does my definition hold up, but you have conveniently ignored the fact that my definition of not overclocking means running within spec so that you don't void your warranty, whereas your definition would see someone voiding their warranty.

But even leaving aside how misguided you and Jenny and other AMDroids are on this feature, what the hell does it matter anyway in regards to the conversation about whether one buys an i5-750 or a PhII-965/955?

The i5-750 still performs the way it does without any user intervention, so why should anyone buying it care if it's "real speed" is 2.66Ghz or higher?

But your definition does not "hold up" except for in your own head. Nowhere did I say anything about warranty... that is your bailiwick not mine. That is a different issue and is not really relevant unless you pretend it's somehow important. Overclock or in this case a "dynamic overclock" is when the chip runs at faster frequencies than the standard speed it runs at. Just like a dynamic underclock is when the chip runs at slower frequencies. (But I guess in your world it's not underclocked if it runs at 50% or 25% of the normal frequency... after all that's not underclocking.)

Why does it matter to this conversation? Because people can make misguided opinions based on an artificial benchmarking feature which performs optimally in benchmark reviews but will not necessarily perform optimally for them. You Intel fanboys keep pretending you are only here to make sure no misinformation is propagated but you sure hate it when somebody points out the misinformation you find acceptable.

Just turning it off and running always at 2.66Ghz would be retarded beyond belief.

Your opinion yet again... not shared by everybody and only your opinion because you somehow believe it supports your "argument".

Why would anyone choose to disable it, unless they were looking to overclock the bejesus out of the chip.

Because some people actually value consistent and repeatable performance. Some people don't care, but that doesn't give them a free license to take that away from those that do.


EDIT: Besides we still don't have all the details or ramifications of how this affects many normal situations. For example on my daily machine I run a virus scanner, a proprietary security package, a network monitoring tool, a very small work database. The CPU isn't always running with a load but we discovered that it is best to disable dynamic underclocking (i.e., power saving features) or you get sporadic and unrepeatable performance. It's not worth having the dynamic clocking turned on.

Based on that can anybody honestly say that I won't get anomalous performance changes with dynamic overclocking ON? If not then we disable it until more data is available. And it doesn't appear likely that it will ever be enabled.

 

[Chad Boga]

Sorry... I don't seem to have as much experience at failing as you do.

You have much, much more.

But your definition does not "hold up" except for in your own head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking

"Overclocking" is the process of running a computer component at a higher clock rate (more clock cycles per second) than it was designed for or was specified by the manufacturer, usually practiced by enthusiasts seeking an increase in the performance of their computers

Nowhere did I say anything about warranty... that is your bailiwick not mine. That is a different issue and is not really relevant unless you pretend it's somehow important.

I would have thought that people attached some value to a warranty, isn't that why companies offer them?

Why does it matter to this conversation? Because people can make misguided opinions based on an artificial benchmarking feature which performs optimally in benchmark reviews but will not necessarily perform optimally for them.

On which particular benchmarks is Turbo boost allowing a performance level that is not indicative of a real world experience?

You Intel fanboys keep pretending you are only here to make sure no misinformation is propagated but you sure hate it when somebody points out the misinformation you find acceptable.

I think it is that your commitment to AMD is so all encompassing, it causes you to become irrational and make false and illogical claims about Intel's processors and you probably believe you are telling the truth.

Your opinion yet again... not shared by everybody and only your opinion because you somehow believe it supports your "argument".

What reasons then can you give for why anybody would turn off Turbo boost in an i5-750 and run at 2.66Ghz always? If it is just my opinion, you should surely be able to come up with some reasons.

Because some people actually value consistent and repeatable performance. Some people don't care, but that doesn't give them a free license to take that away from those that do.

Are any of these people not on medication or in institutions for the criminally insane?

So if I am encoding a video and with Turbo boost on, I am able to do it in say 12 mins even and then one day I am also running a virus scan or something else which means I don't have the same leeway in my thermal envelope for Turbo boost to kick in, and the video then takes 12mins and 30 secs to encode, this will be upsetting to someone?

So what they should do is turn off Turbo boost so that they are never able to get that video encoded in 12 mins flat, it will always be 12 mins and 30 seconds.

What kind of crazy thinking is this?

 

[notty22]

Intel® Core™ i5 Processor I5-750
Thats what the cpu is called
Product features :
Maximum Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency per core - 4 core: 2.80 GHz, 3 core: 2.80 GHz, 2 core: 3.20 GHz; 1 core: 3.20 GHz
Intel® Virtualization Technology for IA-32, Intel® 64 and Intel® Architecture (Intel® VT-x) enabled.

What is so hard to understand about this ?
What about AMD calling its cpus AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
and all sorts of other number iterations ? Was it claiming that as a clock speed ?
Or just trying to mislead its customers ? LOL the mind of a AMD user.

 

[keithlm]

Most of your rambling is not worth replying to anymore. You wish to argue semantics. Have fun. But the descriptive words are used to convey information. If using a word communicates the idea being discussed then it is appropriate to use the term. The chip in question dynamically overclocks it's speed. It is overclocking. Deal with it and stop attempting to use a straw man "definition" argument to derail the conversation.

On which particular benchmarks is Turbo boost allowing a performance level that is not indicative of a real world experience?

I edited my last post too late so HERE:

Besides we still don't have all the details or ramifications of how this affects many normal situations. For example on my daily machine I run a virus scanner, a proprietary security package, a network monitoring tool, a very small work database. The CPU isn't always running with a load but we discovered that it is best to disable dynamic underclocking (i.e., power saving features) or you get sporadic and unrepeatable performance. It's not worth having the dynamic clocking turned on.

Based on that can anybody honestly say that I won't get anomalous performance changes with dynamic overclocking ON? If not then we disable it until more data is available. And it doesn't appear likely that it will ever be enabled.

I think it is that your commitment to AMD is so all encompassing, it causes you to become irrational and make false and illogical claims about Intel's processors and you probably believe you are telling the truth.

And your commitment to a feature on a CPU that mainly only affects benchmarketing is not all encompassing? I think I'll pass on your version of "the truth" because I'm not delusional enough to accept it without questioning it.

So what they should do is turn off Turbo boost so that they are never able to get that video encoded in 12 mins flat, it will always be 12 mins and 30 seconds.

What kind of crazy thinking is this?

Using your specific example: Why should we leave Turbo-marketing on so that somebody can save that 30 seconds? What kind of idiotic thinking allows complexity and more points of failure to a system to get miniscule gains?

 

[Chad Boga]

Besides we still don't have all the details or ramifications of how this affects many normal situations. For example on my daily machine I run a virus scanner, a proprietary security package, a network monitoring tool, a very small work database. The CPU isn't always running with a load but we discovered that it is best to disable dynamic underclocking (i.e., power saving features) or you get sporadic and unrepeatable performance. It's not worth having the dynamic clocking turned on.

Based on that can anybody honestly say that I won't get anomalous performance changes with dynamic overclocking ON? If not then we disable it until more data is available. And it doesn't appear likely that it will ever be enabled.

:lol: :lol: :lol: So you compare a power saving feature which results in the CPU underclocking and naturally enough delivers lower performance, with a scheme that seeks to maximise the thermal envelop by raising clock speeds which would increase performance and you try and lump these together as both delivering sporadic performance. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Man, is there any length you AMDroids won't go to in order to FUD and minimise an Intel feature.

I just can't wait to see the mountain of bullshit you are going to speak when AMD implements a similar scheme.

No doubt your spiel will be that AMD's version was introduced after Intel's because AMD wanted to make sure everything was verified and performance was always repeatable, thus now that technology is all well and good.

And your commitment to a feature on a CPU that mainly only affects benchmarketing is not all encompassing?

Again, how do you work out it only affects benchmarketing?

On which particular benchmarks is Turbo boost allowing a performance level that is not indicative of a real world experience?


If Turbo is kicking in when I am encoding a video or whatever else I am doing so that it happens faster, how is that then not affecting real world workloads.

Using your specific example: Why should we leave Turbo-marketing on so that somebody can save that 30 seconds? What kind of idiotic thinking allows complexity and more points of failure to a system to get miniscule gains?

Turbo isn't turned off in Xeon systems that get authenticated by Tier 1 server manufacturers(the same ones who would not sell the TLB bug riddled Barcelona's for which you and your ilk claimed was no big deal), yet I am to believe your ridiculous fudding that Turbo boost is going to cause a system failure for the average home user?

What's more, if the gains are miniscule, why then are you going around suggesting that there is a significant deception in benchmark results because of Turbo boost?

 

[someguy7]

Because God hates Intel.

 

[Raidur]

I'm surprised I missed such a fun thread...

I'd put money against that bet jenny 'your 940 vs. Elmo's i5'.

A couple cents: let's not forget the OC headroom difference between i5 and the 965. 'Bleh to turbo, its only a single core isn't it?'

Let's see some more 'real' benchmarks jenny, I'll be looking more into it myself.. I can tell your not an idiot. Your dedication to this argument has me curious. Either you work for them or you are really onto something. Please, enlighten me 'us'.

Also I'm curious of random's opinion on the subject.

 

[keithlm]

:lol: :lol: :lol: So you compare a power saving feature which results in the CPU underclocking and naturally enough delivers lower performance, with a scheme that seeks to maximise the thermal envelop by raising clock speeds which would increase performance and you try and lump these together as both delivering sporadic performance. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Man, is there any length you AMDroids won't go to in order to FUD and minimise an Intel feature.

Since the dynamic overclocking feature we are discussing is is basically the same mechanism in reverse as the dynamic underclocking, with minor differences, then yes I will "go to that length" since it happens to be true and not FUD as you claim.

Actually what is most amazing is what lengths Intel fanboys will go to to defend such a feature. I guess you have to because without that "feature" your OMG chip doesn't really do as well on benchmarks. Bummer...

I just can't wait to see the mountain of bullshit you are going to speak when AMD implements a similar scheme.

<YAWN> I'll be saying the same thing I'm saying now and I'll be disabling such a feature in the BIOS.

But then there are absolutely no rumors of such a feature being added to any future AMD chips. The only rumors that might exist were started by Intel fanboys on forums attempting to make failed arguments.

Again, how do you work out it only affects benchmarketing?

On which particular benchmarks is Turbo boost allowing a performance level that is not indicative of a real world experience?


If Turbo is kicking in when I am encoding a video or whatever else I am doing so that it happens faster, how is that then not affecting real world workloads.

What particular benchmark... let me think... wait for it... how about ALL of them that are run in optimal conditions that do not reflect real world conditions that an average user would have. Many people will have their motherboards inside stock cases on the floor against the wall with stock cooling... OH NOES. And they won't be getting the performance that they were fooled into thinking they'd get by review sites that ran the benchmarks in optimal conditions. But oh well... cest la vie.

Turbo isn't turned off in Xeon systems that get authenticated by Tier 1 server manufacturers(the same ones who would not sell the TLB bug riddled Barcelona's for which you and your ilk claimed was no big deal), yet I am to believe your ridiculous fudding that Turbo boost is going to cause a system failure for the average home user?

Sure. And everybody and every company leaves it turned on. Just because of your opinion. And then after that we'll join up with the tinman and scarecrow and go look for that missing brain.

What's more, if the gains are miniscule, why then are you going around suggesting that there is a significant deception in benchmark results because of Turbo boost?

Please go back up and review the above portion about the review sites running benchmarks in optimal conditions while most users will not have those conditions. Of course apparently it is acceptable to purposefully mislead people as long as it is pro-Intel.

 

[Chad Boga]

Since the dynamic overclocking feature we are discussing is is basically the same mechanism in reverse as the dynamic underclocking, with minor differences, then yes I will "go to that length" since it happens to be true and not FUD as you claim.

Are there any reports from any IT media outlets reporting any such instances? Do AMD even raise this as a possible negative?

The answers to those questions are "No", and indeed you will go to any length to FUD with your pseudo-scientific approaches to technology that you clearly can't comprehend.

Actually what is most amazing is what lengths Intel fanboys will go to to defend such a feature. I guess you have to because without that "feature" your OMG chip doesn't really do as well on benchmarks. Bummer...

The defence of the feature only occurs as a result of warding off baseless attacks from the AMDroids jealous that they can't get access to such a feature.

<YAWN> I'll be saying the same thing I'm saying now and I'll be disabling such a feature in the BIOS.

:lol: Yeah sure you will.

But then there are absolutely no rumors of such a feature being added to any future AMD chips.

It is because I give the designers at AMD credit for having far more intelligence than people incapable of understanding the Turbo boost technology. If I thought AMD were a hopeless, *** technology house, then I would take your view.

What particular benchmark... let me think... wait for it... how about ALL of them that are run in optimal conditions that do not reflect real world conditions that an average user would have. Many people will have their motherboards inside stock cases on the floor against the wall with stock cooling... OH NOES. And they won't be getting the performance that they were fooled into thinking they'd get by review sites that ran the benchmarks in optimal conditions. But oh well... cest la vie.

On the one hand you claim that Turbo boost delivers minuscule gains and then on the next you say it is a significant benchmark booster, will you ever stop talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Sure. And everybody and every company leaves it turned on. Just because of your opinion. And then after that we'll join up with the tinman and scarecrow and go look for that missing brain.

I wish you luck in your search Keith, God knows you need it.

You have nothing other than your own bitterness and bile that Intel have a feature AMD lacks(at this point in time), to make your claims that companies are turning Turbo boost off.

I guess if an IT admin is mentally ill they might, but they are so small in number as to be utterly insignificant, I mean you would only have about 2 or 3 such people on AMDZone right?

Turbo boost has never shown itself to cause performance degradation in any known report.

Whereas something like Hyperthreading in it's current incantation, can in certain circumstances, so perhaps certain businesses might turn that off.

But again, this discussion is overwhelmingly about the home user's experience and your cockamamie story about the real danger of Turbo boost causing performance degradation to such a user, is laughable in the extreme. The only danger Turbo boost presents is to offer extra performance.

Please go back up and review the above portion about the review sites running benchmarks in optimal conditions while most users will not have those conditions. Of course apparently it is acceptable to purposefully mislead people as long as it is pro-Intel.

It's not hard for anyone reading reviews to pick up that Turbo boost will work better if your cooling is better and it isn't like one needs to have a Liquid Nitrogen setup to get the full benefit of Turbo boost.

And reviews are filled with machines setup to get optimal performance, they often have the fastest hard disk money can buy, yet many average users will have slower hard disks. The machines will have RAM with faster memory timings than the average user will have, etc.

 

[Pro Llama]

Wow I love how the intel fanboys have to try to change the subject and bring up bs because they can’t disprove the facts stated. This is a black and white subject. The I5 runs anywhere from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz. If you don’t consider turbo mode an overclock then why is it that all the information on it says that it is. Go to yahoo type in turbo mode then click search. What is the first thing that comes up: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Turbo-Mode-Intel,6193.html
What does it call turbo mode? It calls it an overclock. Why is it that there is always 2 intel fanboys that trying to pull out little things when people aren’t preaching their intel bs.

So as I said:
B) Most reviews using an I5 also have turbo mode on, which means that the I5 is not at its stock speed it is overclocked.

D) “those benchmarks blow the Phenom II out of the water” What benchmarks, are you making assumptions and not thinking about turbo mode.
If you feel that taking a 2.66GHz cpu up to 3.2GHz is not an overclock then you are an idiot and I would like you to explain the 20% gain as anything else.