Similar conclusion to the others. Except, Anand does a good job summarizing the FSB performance. A couple of outliers get 6% and 11% performance gains at 1333 MT/s FSB, but the average is around 2%. This seems to be at the cost of 2W additional platform power.
Surprisingly, the chip Anand had could overclock to almost 3.7GHz at stock voltage. Clearly, the theme among these reviews is that the G0 stepping comes with a lot more headroom than the previous stepping, both in core frequency as well as FSB. If Intel wanted to, it looks like the vast majority of parts can exceed 1600 MT/s FSB. On the other hand, without faster DDR3 memory to synchronously match the FSB and reduce the latency, the gains will again be limited. When DDR3-1333 becomes more widely available, I would expect reviewers like Anand to get much better results.
Also, if you want to see AMD wipe up the rear with their 6000+ part, there's plenty of performance graphs showing this in all its gory detail. <g>
Edit: note the Xbitlabs review, where a $266 E6850 consistently offers better performance than today's $999 X6800, and at lower power dissipation, too (65W vs. 75W). This could be the new dream enthusiast's part, and it puts AMD so far in the rear of the pack, it should be highly satisfying to any INTC investor.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
