Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
I'm just saying that with turbo it's not 2.66Ghz CPU anymore. BTW ,applications that can pin down all the cores to the max all the time are not that many(in the desktop world at least).This overall leads to Turbo kicking in harder. Like I said it's useful for benchmarketing,but with stock HSF (the thing that is almost never used in lynnfield reviews-guess why?) the turbo would not kick in due to thermal limitations and the results would be lower for the regular desktop end user-the one that buys stuff and expects it to work out of the box as being reviewed on the net.

As for the Gulftown,I have known the "news" since Shamino first posted his results,you do not have to tell me anything.The CPU is obviously a leaky one,taking ~2V and being produced on highk/mg 32nm at the same time is not bad but now that awesome either. Cold bug is still there,at -150 degrees . They are improving on this though,so kudos for that.
Isn't technology amazing? You actually get more cpu for your money; go figure! My nickname for the i5/i7 line is now the chameleon cpu. It changes "color" based on a range of variables.

I respect your opinion, but you don't have to be the prophet of doom you know. Could you show me a similarly clocked chip in this universe? That's right, there's none. Contrary to what you might think, high clocks/high ipc on the 32nm scale is not a given.

Quote Originally Posted by justapost View Post
Ehh, I picked sidux because it uses the latest kernel and gcc, and I expect this system is better optimized for lates hardware than older debian or ubuntu releases. Turbo works fine it seems but I need to do more testings.
Michael from phoronix had problems with iinconsisten results using an ubuntu alpha release, my results are repeatble consistent. The packages in debian unstable are not alpha versions from git repositories, normaly they are just the latest available stable versions.
Thanks for the info, but why review a newly released platform on an OS that is clearly not final? Is windows not to be trusted? Or other mainstream linux platforms that are fully mature? I would like to see your configs tested on mainstream OSes and apps and see what the differences in performance are.

In all this, I say, if one feels they can get a better performance on some fringe OS/apps then of course they need to take that decision. But, it paints a muddy picture when a fresh platform is benched on an alpha OS, using some really obscure apps to arrive at conclusions which differ from 99.9% of the results out there, and especially when 99% of consumers are not going to use that OS or apps benched?

I'm not trying to diss your efforts, but there has to be a reason, so what's your reason?