Quote on bit-tech what you mean...
RTA 
Yes...same face I make went someone uses big words but never mind this is what your on about.
“The comparative performance of the Gigabyte GA-H55N-USB3 (when we tested it with a Core i5-750 CPU) is very good - we consistently saw it at, or near, the top of our performance charts. Unfortunately the same can't be said in the gaming tests, which saw the H55N near the bottom of the performance pile.”
“That said, the Gigabyte board can't translate the extra GHz to fps, as the H55N failed to improve much on its dismal showing in Crysis even with the i5-661 ticking over at 4.4GHz. Clearly there is something amiss with the PCI-E connection of this board. However, that's hardly a damning criticism, as by installing a card that's longer than the board and taller than the CPU cooler, you'd have to house the system in a micro-ATX case, and which point you should opt for a more adaptable micro-ATX motherboard. Overall then, it's a mostly impressive outing for the H55N, with the only downside a practical irrelevance.”
So whats all that mean? Well lets post the chart and go to the overclocked one.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/motherboards/2010/06/15/gigabyte-ga-h55n-usb3-mini-itx-motherboard/8Note all tested boards without the i5 661 listed by them have the i5 750.
Note that all the other tested boards with the i5 661 are overclocked too as you can see from the first chart but this board has the best minimum FPS.
So there is nothing wrong with this board that was tested apart from a tolerance of performance from one board to another as does how well one CPU OC to another even if they are the same.
