A staunch AMD pundit given his overly-biased commentary on Intel parts.
Overclocking is not important to the overwhelming majority of Intel's users so I find it laughable that you're trying to chastise them for not catering to a specific demographic need when over clocking is only represented by a relatively minuscule amount. Furthermore, for the majority of those that are looking to over clock, Sandy Bridge does it better than any other chip before it. No, what you're referring to is a minuscule amount amongst a minority of users; the guys that like to bench for fun. Sounds to me like you're grasping at straws and coming up short.
I stated facts regarding both CPU manufacturers.
Fact is that Intel doesn't want their CPUs' overclocked and have gone to this length in order to minimize Overclocking. If you want to overclock a Sandy Bridge and future CPUs', you're going to PAY for the ability to do so. The cost is based on the ability of the CPU.
What I find funny is you take the fanboi stance. I never mentioned earlier Intel CPUs'. Only mentioned their business plan for their future CPUs'. Personally I have no hang ups using either Intel or AMD. If it's affordable for me at the time I will buy the best I can get my hands on. Sandy Bridge is a nice CPU, but I think that its reign will be short. Bulldozer is right around the corner has the same scale architecture and is based on ACTUAL cores not Hyperthreading.
But if your aim here was to ridicule me then you fail since there was nothing I said to ridicule.