Quote Originally Posted by Hornet331 View Post
so basically your saying its bad to you get more then you pay for...

I don't see a "grainy road" at all, you pay for a 3.0ghz cpu and you get that. If the conditions are right (temp/consumption) you get more performance. How can this be bad thing... for most reviews it was disabled anyway or tested with and without turbo so even compareabillity is given...

Imho ever since intel introduced turbo certain people where in knee-jerk mode -> turbo = bad...
At least there "arguments" have run out of full now...
Quote Originally Posted by OhNoes! View Post
Ohnoes! Ohnoes! I ordered a 3.33GHZ cpu and de evil Intel gave me a cpu that runs at 3.46GHZ! Ohnoes!

Seriously, dude!

If turbo was such a bad idea, why did AMD implement it? Surely there must be a conspiracy somewhere! Wait...... ah I see..... AMD's Turbo Core does not boost power on all 6 cores. That could be the only reason.

Fact is turbo boost is a genius feature and AMD would have been stupid not to implement it seeing that they're staking their future on many core (just as Intel) in a world dominated by lazy programmers fixated on single-thread.
Oh No i did not say i dont like turbo i just said that the all core boost is not fair that's it. It alters the speed of all cores if a correct environment is presented and that is grainy in it self.

The box should have been marked 3.46Ghz instead then should it not, different users of same cpu with same multi thread app will get different performance depending on the turbo mode.

As for AMD not supporting all core turbo, look at my posts when i had a intel Bloomfield ES and i reported odd bench results in cinebench, i hate all core turbo since then. I supported less than 4 core turbo from that time because single threaded app's worked better as a result.