Fractal Design Focus 2 chassis review
Scythe Mugen 5 Rev.C CPU Cooler review
be quiet Pure Loop 2 FX 280mm LCS review
HP FX900 1 TB NVMe Review
Scythe FUMA2 Rev.B CPU Cooler review
SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review
Corsair K70 RGB PRO Mini Wireless review
MSI MPG A1000G - 1000W PSU Review
Goodram IRDM PRO M.2 SSD 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
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...
Vananovion
Senior Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 2017-08-31
Senior Member
Posts: 155
Joined: 2017-08-31
#5480154 Posted on: 10/10/2017 11:25 AM
I wouldn't be so sure. I think this could fall under the Unfair Commercial Practices directive, Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ucp/public/index.cfm?event=public.directive.browse2&elemID=227#article-209). Looked at some of the cases and there have been fines for stuff like "disclaimer unintelligible to the average consumer" and "disclosing information on promotional medium and not the product itself" etc. Guess it all comes down to how Intel covers its ass, but even hordes of lawyers can make a mistake or an ommission and open up way for litigation. Also a court may still take an issue due to different interpretation. It's not unprecedented.
In any case, I think we can all agree that this move is only meant to mislead the average customer, no matter how legally covered Intel is.
Intel has an army of lawyers like all big tech companies with lots of patents. I'm sure they can fill the product packaging with suitable disclaimers and inform retailers to tell customers the boost frequency only applies to old single core applications and in modern multicore cases it's something totally different. After that it's the retailer burning if somebody is disappointed.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think this could fall under the Unfair Commercial Practices directive, Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ucp/public/index.cfm?event=public.directive.browse2&elemID=227#article-209). Looked at some of the cases and there have been fines for stuff like "disclaimer unintelligible to the average consumer" and "disclosing information on promotional medium and not the product itself" etc. Guess it all comes down to how Intel covers its ass, but even hordes of lawyers can make a mistake or an ommission and open up way for litigation. Also a court may still take an issue due to different interpretation. It's not unprecedented.
In any case, I think we can all agree that this move is only meant to mislead the average customer, no matter how legally covered Intel is.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 6293
Joined: 2010-10-17
Senior Member
Posts: 6293
Joined: 2010-10-17
#5480155 Posted on: 10/10/2017 11:26 AM
The hell are they playing at?!
The hell are they playing at?!
BlueRay
Senior Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 2015-11-18
Senior Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 2015-11-18
#5480166 Posted on: 10/10/2017 11:52 AM
Ugh another reason to buy a K model and just set the frequency you want.
From the other side WTF Intel really? What are they trying to hide? That they can't hit big clocks on all cores for more than 1-2 secs or something?
Ugh another reason to buy a K model and just set the frequency you want.
From the other side WTF Intel really? What are they trying to hide? That they can't hit big clocks on all cores for more than 1-2 secs or something?
FlinchingNinja
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2008-02-13
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2008-02-13
#5480167 Posted on: 10/10/2017 11:53 AM
It's to increase yields. They just removed a test case.
It's to increase yields. They just removed a test case.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11339
Joined: 2004-05-10
It doesnt matter. Reviews will reveal the actual performance. If Intel doesnt want to lose sales to AMD, they will have to make sure their buyers are not shafted due to unexpected shortcomings in performance. If its to cover inconsistencies in boost clocks, they still have to ensure their products are good enough in the end.