Ok, its just not worth trying 180+ on my chip, probably still my ram. The voltage needed to keep it stable is at 1.55V and since I wouldn't run my chip daily at that Voltage anyways, I need not make the comparison.
In my opinion, Turbo Boost requires the equivalent Voltages and RAM settings that a non-Turbo Boost would require whenever it maxes out. The benefit is that it only runs at this speed for short increments, which can be a powersavings. The downside is that if it is a single core application that benefits from Turbo Boost, then it will run at that speed in spurts and experience (just like in a car turbo) Turbo Lag. It still takes a split second for it to go from say 2.67Ghz to 4.2GHz, and in benchmarks every second counts. Turbo will not just hover at 4.2 GHz the whole time, although it will not set at 2.67 either.
If an application requires more than two cores, Turbo Boost leaves you hanging. Because when this happens, your chip goes to its normal 21 multiplier and puts a 175 Bclk at 3.67GHz, where as if you overclocked it without turbo, you would run at whatever clock speed (4200 MHz for example). This would be more beneficial for encoding or multi-core processing, however the CPU will run at a much higher temperature the entire time. Even at idle (depending on ambient temps) I have seen my chip hovering between 41-46°C. We won't even talk about sustained temps of 84°C and higher. But the overall bench scores show that non-turbo utilizing all 4 cores is better overall.
So in conclusion, if your aiming at just bench-testing (similar to racing on the track) then I think that Non-Turbo Boost is the way to go, but if your goal is every day computing, the Turbo-Boost is as effective and really only lags very little (split-seconds) behind a Non-turbo Boost, yet runs much cooler and consumes less power.