If we try to summarize what we found here, then there are a few trends that are redlining through this article. Intel's decision to go with a dual channel memory interface hardly penalizes the performance, similarly, scaling the interface from a 2 x memory data rate down to a 1.5 x un-core frequency does not seem to have too much averse effects either while at the same time it opens up new possibilities for memory overclocking and other foolish adventures
The Core i5 750 falls a bit behind the performance expectations, particularly in view of the more than stellar performance of the Core i7-870. Looking at single threaded performance like in Cinebench, the difference is not particularly obvious and can be attruibuted to the lower Turbo Mode speed but things are changing dramatically whenever multithreaded applications take advantage of HyperThreading.
This said, some of the folks at AMD who had sleepless nights throughout the last 2 months can probably ween off the "PM" pills, the Core i5 750, which is positioned pretty exactly against the high-end Phenom II 900 series is not the expected AMD killer - at least not at default speed. Rumor has it though that there is some wicked overclocking headroom, which changes this particular notion again. Melatonin anybody in Austin? Not really, that extreme overclocking clientele is only a small fraction of the entire market.
In closing, we have to hand it to Intel again, Lynnfield is elegant, smooth, wicked fast and hopefully eliminates the FSB once and forever. Well done!