LOL. I don't think anyone who has been playing with hardware for 10+ years would disagree with me. I'm not saying it isn't still fun. I'm just saying that the overclocking hobby has changed to become more inclusive. In some respects, I think that is a good thing. In others, it is not. This sort of shift always makes things easier, and if the best part of a hobby is the challenge, then the satisfaction is inevitably diminished.
I digress. Nothing like a moderator derailing a thread. Carry on.
It's not really derailing the thread though. To sum it up in a way that rolls it all together, Intel has purposefully adopted overclocking as a sales item, specifically with the "K" CPUs. On any given week, all CPUs sold under the "K" moniker should clock identically, and Intel has tuned their process specifically for this, so they know where on the wafers to go to in order to get us decent chips to play with. They will also replace a chip "killed' under OC with no questions asked, for a small fee (ie, $25 USD), so you can get a CPU, clock the snot out of it, and then return it for a fresh one that still carries the standard warranty.
Anyway, part of that is the CPU clock speed, since this is part of what most "enthusiasts" seem concerned about. That 4.6 GHz clock that I've been talking about in my own reviews for some time is kind of the base line Intel shoots for, although some weeks it's only 4.5 GHz, or maybe it goes higher yet, @ 4.7 GHz. The voltage required to get there may vary, too, but the end power consumption should be equal. What that leaves us, for the skill-based side of OC, is cache speed and memory tweaking. Unfortunately, since DDR3 is old, and already greatly exploited, there's not left there to play with. Most "pro" clocks have their good sets of PSC and Samsung ICs, and maybe a set of Hynix MFR for high clocks, and current chips have let memory scale far higher than ever before, but it's not like we hear about records being broken any more.
So, the normal user gets a decent OCing platform, that's easy to use, and forgiving, and us older die-hard clockers did the R&D for it. We get to be the gurus that help people out, who then get great results, and everyone is kind of happy, since it's all backed by a decent warranty.
Why turn it off? Do you need that kind of speed when its sitting there at the desktop, not to mention shortening the life of the chip while not processing much of anything?
I OC with turbo enabled so that at idle and browsing it runs at like 1.8ghz, which is perfectly fine, and once i start applying load and what not from gaming or video editting, itll boost to my OC setting when I need it.
Everyone OC's with Turbo enabled. When you "disable" Turbo, you are actually forcing Turbo to be ON, permanently, as I posted above. There's no need to be concerned with CPU longevity these days. A chip will overheat and throttle long before you're putting it in a state where that'd be a concern, as long as you haven't de-lidded. People have complained about hot-running CPUs, but really, this is a safety factor that will keep your CPU safe. We just need to not be so concerned about operating temperatures, and push right to the limit.