buy the board with no ambiguities that fit your need.
That is one way of handling things!
But, let's see if someone from Intel or using Intel boards is able to take on these spec ambiguities. How the eerily quiet or the cold responses make room for wild imaginations!
*also see the history and progression of this question:
1. mixed and contradictory info on Rapid Recover Technology for PCH(DP55) boards
2. Rapid Recover availability and BIOS configuration guide for DP55 boards
People in the engineering world know the importance of specs and would not accept ambiguities there. For this long lasting spec ambiguities and cold(or virtually no) responses. Several theories have brewed up from my wild imaginations including:
1. Intel engineers are simply too busy to keep spec records straight, but why do community users keep quiet? Don't tell me it is an open conspiracy against me!
2. Could Intel exercise binning process for Core i5 and DP55WB? Thus, some users may be able to buy full featured(with Rapid Recover Technology support) and better performance models, while others may be not that lucky. Could Intel bin models for US and Global customers respectively?
3. Intel sets Lynnfield processors and DP55 boards as transitional models and intentionally keeps their specs floating as time progressing. So customers will get the same model with a different spec at a different period of time. I am not just talking about CPU's or P55 chipset's stepping. Penryn C2D and C2Q models have their brother models with different steppings alright, but their cache speed are all the same.
4. Intel web sites including this community forum are counterfeited and I am forwarded to these sites and using them. It sounds highly unlikely. But, when I tried to get the Intel China's address from the phone and to write them a letter instead of an email. They are not willing to provide their address.
So, which theory or combination of theories above sound more real to you?
Here comes my own examining on the possibility of the first theory (i.e., assuming all my visited Intel sites are authentic):
Intel is simply too busy to update Core i5 750 spec with regard to L3 cache speed and DP55WB's Rapid Recover Technology support.
After my asking Intel China on 2009/10/28 about the posted 2.66GHz L3 cache speed(not 2.4GHz as written in my openning post) on processorfinder.intel.com, it took Intel China tech support quite a while to clarify this spec confusion. The original tech support tracking number was even changed from #9425869 to #9450454 on 2009/11/09 before they finally sending me an email on 2009/11/30 to confirm it should be 2.14GHz, the UNCore speed. Intel China promised the correct spec will be posted ASAP on this email referring to THREAD_ID 49871028. However, the only update, up until 2009/12/20, on Core i5 750 L3 cache speed is that the L3 cache speed of Core i5 750 becomes undefined instead of 2.14GHz on processorfinder.intel.com.
Rapid Recover Technology(RRT) support question was first reported to Intel China on 2009/10/20, and a ticket #9409443 was opened. My first email reply from Intel China was on 10/23, referring to THREAD_ID 47878316, and it confirmed RRT is supported by DP55WB. But, later on 10/30 I got another email from Intel China saying RRT IS NOT SUPPORTED until Intel Matrix Storage Management(IMSM) driver gets updated in 2010/1, referring to THREAD_ID 47918841. Since I did not get any online reference from Intel China for this, I turned to Intel English_US support for confirmation. I received an email from Intel English_US support on 2009/11/10, referring to THREAD_ID 47970866 or tracking ticket #9450033, and this email confirmed RRT is supported as a feature of IMSM. I replied to Intel English_US support that Intel China had given me a different answer but without a reference. After receiving my second confirmation request with Intel China's ticket number referred, Intel English_US support sent me the second confirmation email saying RRT is supported without a doubt. The divergent spec on RRT support turns into a deadlock since. Intel china insisted RRT is not supported even after checking on Intel tracking records on English_US support ticket #9450033. They said that they tested DP55WB and proved it failed to work. Intel China couldn't explain why DP55WB Product Brief saying RRT is supported, neither could they find any online document from Intel site saying IMSM driver for RRT won't be ready until 2010/1. To me, it is a true deadlock on the RRT support function spec.
I don't believe Intel does not understand the severity of making unclear or ambiguous specification in the business and the government sectors. By reading some government procurement specifications, you can find even government is required to avoid making ambiguous specification themselves. See http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/400/402-5.html for an example.
Thus, if Intel is not intentionally messing with the spec for some reason or if Intel site is not hijacked and tempered with, then it must be Intel too busy to keep the spec straight. But, isn't Intel aware of the importance of avoiding the unclear specifications? Thus, this theory is not impossible but not likely.
With Intel China and Intel US-English supports' answers going divergent, my second theory starts to take form.