Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies
In yet another unexpected move Intel has made is clear that it will not be sharing any details anymore on the multi-core Turbo clock frequencies of their processors.
You might already have noticed it, Intel is only listing the highest Boost frequency, and not the rest. Here’s the thing, the recent generation processors basically have three main frequencies.
- Base Baseclock
- Binned multi all-core clock turbo
- Single thread turbo
Intel from now on will only list the base and (1) and Single thread (3) turbo. As to why this is, remains uncertain, however many scenarios pop into mind. It might be a legal reason as they cannot guarantee the all core turbo on all processors.However, the longer I think about this, then an old routine kicks in .. what would be the most probable? Might it be that Intel likes that highest Turbo listed on their packaging a bit better for marketing and thus sales? I mean, it’s not unthinkable right? The guys from eteknix have a quote from Intel on this:
“[W]e’re no longer disclosing this level of detail as its proprietary to Intel. Intel only specifies processor frequencies for base and single-core Turbo in our processor marketing and technical collateral, such as ARK, and not the multi-core Turbo frequencies. We’re aligning communications to be consistent. All Turbo frequencies are opportunistic given their dependency on system configuration and workloads.”
So a Core i7 8700 is now being listed as a 4.7 GHz processor (click the link and look at the ARK info). But considering that is just one thread, it really runs 4.3 GHz on all six cores. Weird move huh?
Processor | Cores / Threads | Base Clock | Turbo 2.0 (6c) | Turbo 3.0 (1c) | L3 | TDP | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core i7 8700K | 6/12 | 3.7 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 12 MB | 95 W | $359 / €389 |
Core i7 8700 | 6/12 | 3.2 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 12 MB | 65 W | $303 / €327 |
Core i5 8600K | 6/6 | 3.6 GHz | 4.1 GHz | 4.3 GHz | 9 MB | 95 W | $257 / €273 |
Core i5 8400 | 6/6 | 2.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 4.0 GHz | 9 MB | 65 W | $182 / €192 |
Core i3 8350K | 4/4 | 4.0 GHz | NA | NA | 8 MB | 91 W | $169 / €189 |
Core i3 8300 | 4/4 | 4.0 GHz | NA | NA | 8 MB | 65 W | - |
Core i3 8100 | 4/4 | 3.6 GHz | NA | NA | 6 MB | 65 W | $117 / €123 |
If you look at the above table, pretty much the greyed out Turbo 2.0 info is no longer disclosed by Intel.
Intel Z370 Chipset Could Support Kaby Lake - But Intel Will Not Allow It - 09/22/2017 09:15 PM
Much has been said and spoken about Intel upcoming 6-core Coffee Lake processors. It will launch based on a LGA 1151 Socket. We’ve been able to conform that Z370 will only support Coffee La...
Intel Will Add Wi-Fi and USB 3.1 support into next-gen chipsets - 11/10/2016 07:34 PM
Intel reportedly is planning to add USB 3.1 and Wi-Fi functionality housed directly inside their motherboard chipsets, likely starting at 300-series scheduledwhich would be released at the end of 2017...
Intel Will Launch Two LGA1150 Broadwell CPUs with 65W TDP - 03/24/2015 12:52 PM
In the second half of 2015, Intel is to launch two LGA1150 Broadwell CPUs (Intel Core I7-5775C & Core I5-5675C) based on socket 1150, both have a 65W TDP. In tital 5 models will be launched but th...
2014 was a good year for Intel with 56 Billion USD Revenue - 01/16/2015 09:09 AM
Intel issued a document sharing its fourth-quarter financial results, they had a record year. Full year revenue increased 6 percent to $55.9 billion and net profit came in at $11.7 billion. Intel sa...
Intel will pay $1.5 billion in Nvidia settlement - 01/15/2014 10:33 AM
Intel and Nvidia are burying the hatchet and put away their differences and ongoing lawsuit and have settled for a $1.5 billion, six year cross-licensing agreement between the rival chipmakers. The...
Senior Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: 2012-04-30
@krakenxt
being more expensive? check
being only up for one chipset cycle? check
running hotter? check
ryzen will offer more cores at lower price than the i5 is going for, and as long as ppl are not interested in MT perf, it can even be more cheap than intel..
besides the fact that those not upgrading every year will have a nice platform to upgrade the cpu in a few years without having to change the rest (at higher cost).
not sure what you mean by wrecked entire lineup...
Senior Member
Posts: 14287
Joined: 2014-07-21
I guess it makes good reviews even more important then, and not buying before you have read them.
Senior Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 2014-10-20
"wrecked" in accordance to Whom? I hardly call your biased opinion a source of relevant information. Fanboy all you want, without AMD you would still sit on i7 8700k as quad core.
Don't forget a simple fact that Intel is exploiting this technology process for several years now, while Ryzen is not even a year old. What does this tell us? Unless Intel will devise a brand new architecture on a new process, we will see more of the same down the road. Ryzen on the other hand is just a first step.
Im looking forward to comparisons of Ryzen re-release this February and 8700k.
Personally I rather stick with solid platform for years to come, then jump a chipset every release with lame shady excuses as to why we can't keep previous "generation" chipset.
Senior Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 2017-08-31
This looks like a clear case of misleading the consumer. If I want to buy a multicore CPU and see its boost frequency of 4.7Ghz, I expect all cores to be able to do that. I smell a court case in the EU for Intel in the near future.
Senior Member
Posts: 2420
Joined: 2016-01-29
wanky marketing as per usual, the sad part is that who ever thought to do this is probably getting a raise if it works.
also proprietary my ass.