Um, why the double-quote?
The damage control is amazing.
- Intel has not logged a single finger to disuade any motherboard maker to stop the practice of aggressive boost clocks.
- Somehow, all of them have a very similar performance, almost as if they are following a spec. (Them trying to pull a fast one by adjusting bClk nonwithstanding)
Its been known for a while the TDP for Intel is at base clock.
I'm not trying to defend Intel of mischaracterizing the power/performance of their CPUs. They definitely need to communicate this better.
What I am
trying to do is alert people to the underlying reasons behind this discrepancy. Mr. Safford does his readers a disservice by over-simplifying the issue and not providing or directing people to the real explanation of what's going on.
As for the similarity of results across motherboards, that's because many are running with "unlimited turbo". Try actually reading
the article, and you'll understand.
However, try putting one of these CPUs in a workstation motherboard and you'll see it respect its TDP, under sustained loads. Likewise, I expect systems from large OEMs, like Dell and HP to behave closer to Intel's recommendations.
By not acknowledging the role of the motherboard in this situation, you're failing to equip users of such systems with the knowledge that the motherboard might be holding them back. And user empowerment is really what I care about. Really, what good can come of these forums if not education?