Originally Posted by Bradford1040
you have your Intel clocked at 4.8 24/7?? I have been reading articles today on the sandy-bridge this being one of the ------------Now I'm not a fan of either CPU company to the point of openly bashing one or the other but i feel this product does no live up to its hype, which is the basis of my rating. First things first the recall, it was a major headache for me and my customers I have built three computers using this particular chip and another 4 with the 2500K and 0f the 7, 5 had to be torn down and the mainboards sent back... lame. Second to achieve 4.5mhz and higher OC HT has to be turned off which is kind of the bread and butter of the I core line so in most cases i seen better performance at lower clocks with HT enabled especially in multi threaded apps so 5ghz is more like bragging rights I guess but the new Bios and Multiplier OCing does not have the feeling of the good ole days of Overclocking... I Blame AMD. Finally Turbo boost overall is sand bagging the numbers, both companies do it but shutting off cores to raise clocks on part of them for apps that don't use muliple cores is hardly a bullet point.
Yes its at 4.8GHz 24/7 stable and I capped stable at 5.1GHz and 1.5v. As for the recall, it's why I bought through Microcenter and Newegg so at least I can do an Advanced RMA or return it in person for my replacement. Even many of the last gen Core i7's can do 4-4.5GHz with HT on so I'm not sure what you're rambling on about having "HT Off" since many people have high stable OC's with it on. Go check out the Intel CPU Forums and you'll see yourself. It's not always about the overclocking though, the simple improved and more efficient architecture is what makes Sandybridge or even any i7/i5 better than the Phenom II's. AMD's Low-K MG loses every time against Intel's High-K MG and there's no denying that. Intel has a MUCH higher clock cycle effectiveness over AMD because of this said better architecture which equates into higher performance. Both my 1090T and X4 720 in no way compare to my i7 2600K even at stock clocks.
The vast majority of those individuals have HT on
That benchmark shows an overall 25-35% increase in performance in comparison. It's just sad that it takes like 1 and a half of AMD's cores to equate to 1 of Intel's.
It's not fanboyism if it's true.Edited by LethalRise750 - 3/23/11 at 12:15pm