Quote Originally Posted by Blauhung View Post
I would think the smarter way to play this would be to leave turbo mode on, and consider the multi as always n+2 when calculating what the final clock will be.

This allows you to still make use of the intelligent clock scaling up and down in periods of loading and not loading for power efficiency.

As far as reviews go. I believe that any reviewer that is looking at the platform for stock ability comparisons should leave the features to default to show consumers the out of the box performance of the platform.

And exactly, unlike the FSB, the speed of the reference clock has no direct impact on overall performance of the platform. With FSB overclocking, quite often, a lower CPU multi and higher FSB speed can hit the same CPU clock, but speed up data transfer across the bus (providing you aren't switching to a looser strap or Trd as it's called nowadays).

Here, there are no performance gains for moving the reference clock other then fine tuning CPU/Mem/QPI speeds between multipliers that fall on either side of a stability zone.
Most important part here. Out of the box performance in more important than turning of stuff for theory and what ifs. It is far easier to work with something than to work against it. In this case it'd seem maxing out turbo tweaking it to the edge (over the edge = until its not stable anymore) would make all the sense in the world.

Go back to August 2006 (on this forum) and look at all of the features turned off or disabled to get better overclocks on the first C2D's? SO its not like folks aren't use to killing features to get better overclocks. IMHO, that's kind of counter productive

No matter how nicely said, some will always look for chinks and blemishes in the something shiny and new