GALAX HOF Pro PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable 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 08:15 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 06:34 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 11:52 AM
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 08:09 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 09:33 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...
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5480311 Posted on: 10/10/2017 05:44 PM
I would say its a combo of everything mentioned here.
Mainly clever marketing to look better (but the intel does x.xx GHz..), hide possible issues with clocks/yields.
and as they can't beat amd in price and/or core count, it's the least expensive option.
I would say its a combo of everything mentioned here.
Mainly clever marketing to look better (but the intel does x.xx GHz..), hide possible issues with clocks/yields.
and as they can't beat amd in price and/or core count, it's the least expensive option.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 2010-05-26
#5480313 Posted on: 10/10/2017 05:46 PM
It's a multi-core Proc of course i want to know what all my cores boost to. You've got 6 cores 12 threads but Intel only want to tell you what one core can do. Intel are becoming very shallow if you ask me. Poor idiots will see 4.7 on the box and think that's what all cores can do.
It's a multi-core Proc of course i want to know what all my cores boost to. You've got 6 cores 12 threads but Intel only want to tell you what one core can do. Intel are becoming very shallow if you ask me. Poor idiots will see 4.7 on the box and think that's what all cores can do.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5480350 Posted on: 10/10/2017 06:43 PM
It's now an issue because they are including more cores with only a minor change to TDP. Running 6 cores @ 95W (8700K) is a lot harder than 4 cores @ 91W (7700K), and it will only get worse as they add more cores. I think they're worried that people will see a slower all-core turbo clock on their newer chips and not want to buy them.
But like I said before: why is this now an issue? I completely get what you're saying, but this isn't a new "problem". What you said has always been true, the only difference is Intel uses more cores at higher speeds. But if doing that compromises stability and consistency, then maybe they shouldn't do it.
It's now an issue because they are including more cores with only a minor change to TDP. Running 6 cores @ 95W (8700K) is a lot harder than 4 cores @ 91W (7700K), and it will only get worse as they add more cores. I think they're worried that people will see a slower all-core turbo clock on their newer chips and not want to buy them.
george1976
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 2015-12-22
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 2015-12-22
#5480388 Posted on: 10/10/2017 07:59 PM
Marketing, 4.3 ghz is dangerously close to AMD's 4 ghz.
But when the "informed" buyer sees 4.7 ghz, will say: can I have 2 of these please?
Marketing, 4.3 ghz is dangerously close to AMD's 4 ghz.
But when the "informed" buyer sees 4.7 ghz, will say: can I have 2 of these please?
Fediuld
Senior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 2016-10-04
Senior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 2016-10-04
#5480391 Posted on: 10/10/2017 08:02 PM
Also the reviews have shown that at 1080p it takes a GTX1080ti for their product to show any performance gains, over CPUs half the price and 4/5th of the clock speeds, like the Ryzen 5. Any lesser CPU, even a GTX1080, all are equal.
However 1080Ti is a GPU that many will find stupid idea to use at 1080p and not 2560x1440 or 3440x1440. Where again CPUs performance is levelled.
It's now an issue because they are including more cores with only a minor change to TDP. Running 6 cores @ 95W (8700K) is a lot harder than 4 cores @ 91W (7700K), and it will only get worse as they add more cores. I think they're worried that people will see a slower all-core turbo clock on their newer chips and not want to buy them.
Also the reviews have shown that at 1080p it takes a GTX1080ti for their product to show any performance gains, over CPUs half the price and 4/5th of the clock speeds, like the Ryzen 5. Any lesser CPU, even a GTX1080, all are equal.
However 1080Ti is a GPU that many will find stupid idea to use at 1080p and not 2560x1440 or 3440x1440. Where again CPUs performance is levelled.
Jorge Nascimento
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 2017-09-10
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 2017-09-10
#5480427 Posted on: 10/10/2017 09:28 PM
Intel has already been surpassed by AMD in August 2017, the volume of sales of their CPU family surpassed INTEL, and that's just consumer CPU, Server is another story and even without knowing the sales volumes of EPIC i see tons of major companies worldwide changing to EPIC servers.
Intel has already been surpassed by AMD in August 2017, the volume of sales of their CPU family surpassed INTEL, and that's just consumer CPU, Server is another story and even without knowing the sales volumes of EPIC i see tons of major companies worldwide changing to EPIC servers.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5480431 Posted on: 10/10/2017 09:43 PM
But haven't they detailed the full frequency tables on previous gen 6, 8, and 10 core parts?
Mind providing a source showing Epyc sales? I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know where to find that kind of info because I'm curious about such statistics.
It's now an issue because they are including more cores with only a minor change to TDP. Running 6 cores @ 95W (8700K) is a lot harder than 4 cores @ 91W (7700K), and it will only get worse as they add more cores. I think they're worried that people will see a slower all-core turbo clock on their newer chips and not want to buy them.
But haven't they detailed the full frequency tables on previous gen 6, 8, and 10 core parts?
Intel has already been surpassed by AMD in August 2017, the volume of sales of their CPU family surpassed INTEL, and that's just consumer CPU, Server is another story and even without knowing the sales volumes of EPIC i see tons of major companies worldwide changing to EPIC servers.
Mind providing a source showing Epyc sales? I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know where to find that kind of info because I'm curious about such statistics.
NAMEk
Senior Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 2006-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 2006-05-26
#5480455 Posted on: 10/10/2017 11:09 PM
But like I was saying before, consistency isn't an issue unless you're using the stock heatsink and a very crappy PSU. My brother's PC has a quad core Xeon with HT and the stock heatsink. The heatsink is (to my annoyance) completely coated with dust, and yet the CPU can maintain turbo speeds on all cores just fine. You have to have really bad TDP issues in order for boost speeds to fluctuate enough for Intel to claim variability is an issue. If TDP consistency becomes that much of an issue, there's a good chance it is going to fail prematurely due to other quality problems. Granted, my brother's Xeon doesn't get reach the 4GHz range and Intel is finally going beyond 4 threads for mainstream products (more cores adds more variables). But as stated before, Intel has the time and money to refine their products to remain more stable. There is no good excuse for this.
The only reason Intel keeps pushing these high turbo speeds is because it's an effortless way for them to make their product seem better than previous generations and the competition. But the fact of the matter is, Intel may be pushing them too high, and as a result they can't promise results anymore. This is starting to look like the P4 "GHz wars" again.
I doubt frequency wars will cut it again. We become more and more educated everyday.
But like I was saying before, consistency isn't an issue unless you're using the stock heatsink and a very crappy PSU. My brother's PC has a quad core Xeon with HT and the stock heatsink. The heatsink is (to my annoyance) completely coated with dust, and yet the CPU can maintain turbo speeds on all cores just fine. You have to have really bad TDP issues in order for boost speeds to fluctuate enough for Intel to claim variability is an issue. If TDP consistency becomes that much of an issue, there's a good chance it is going to fail prematurely due to other quality problems. Granted, my brother's Xeon doesn't get reach the 4GHz range and Intel is finally going beyond 4 threads for mainstream products (more cores adds more variables). But as stated before, Intel has the time and money to refine their products to remain more stable. There is no good excuse for this.
The only reason Intel keeps pushing these high turbo speeds is because it's an effortless way for them to make their product seem better than previous generations and the competition. But the fact of the matter is, Intel may be pushing them too high, and as a result they can't promise results anymore. This is starting to look like the P4 "GHz wars" again.
I doubt frequency wars will cut it again. We become more and more educated everyday.
pimpineasy
Senior Member
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007-01-04
Senior Member
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007-01-04
#5480478 Posted on: 10/11/2017 12:55 AM
lol they just copy amd all time since x32_x64. they even steal their apu. idk why they try an lie to consumer? I already got pissed at amd about this with apu's.. just left a shitty newegg review, nonetheless, it is bull shit.
My amd laptop is 2.4ghz an 2.8ghz boost apu but it downclock to 1.4 when any 3d acceleration.
My A8 - 7600 downclocks from 3.8ghz boost to 3.2ghz to 2.4ghz.
so i got a 1.4ghz and 2.4ghz processor. i when i new for fact i wanted 2.8-3.2 because even my fk $40 phone with better battery life then my laptop has 2.2ghz processor multicore.
Both these procs dont mention that fact! only list TURBO BOOST BULL SHIT just sell unlocked procs only wtf with just old school ghz rating?
lol they just copy amd all time since x32_x64. they even steal their apu. idk why they try an lie to consumer? I already got pissed at amd about this with apu's.. just left a shitty newegg review, nonetheless, it is bull shit.
My amd laptop is 2.4ghz an 2.8ghz boost apu but it downclock to 1.4 when any 3d acceleration.
My A8 - 7600 downclocks from 3.8ghz boost to 3.2ghz to 2.4ghz.
so i got a 1.4ghz and 2.4ghz processor. i when i new for fact i wanted 2.8-3.2 because even my fk $40 phone with better battery life then my laptop has 2.2ghz processor multicore.
Both these procs dont mention that fact! only list TURBO BOOST BULL SHIT just sell unlocked procs only wtf with just old school ghz rating?
Arbie
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2008-07-04
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2008-07-04
#5480480 Posted on: 10/11/2017 01:05 AM
???
Can't tell if you're being serious or just trolling...
Obviously just trolling. He's probably 14 years old and has zero technical knowledge - just a big anonymous mouth. These kind of people enjoy screwing up things like forums, that others are trying to use and that some have worked hard to provide.
???
Can't tell if you're being serious or just trolling...
Obviously just trolling. He's probably 14 years old and has zero technical knowledge - just a big anonymous mouth. These kind of people enjoy screwing up things like forums, that others are trying to use and that some have worked hard to provide.
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2016-08-01
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2016-08-01
#5480489 Posted on: 10/11/2017 02:04 AM
i can see already the box
i can see already the box
4.7ghz
1core / 4.3ghz all cores
or something like that 
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5480496 Posted on: 10/11/2017 02:41 AM
@schmidtbag
i know at least for germany (europe; dont remember) that sales were +50% of the cpu market a while ago.
really funny, ppl that call me "troll" in other intel posts are surprisingly silent on news like this...
@schmidtbag
i know at least for germany (europe; dont remember) that sales were +50% of the cpu market a while ago.
really funny, ppl that call me "troll" in other intel posts are surprisingly silent on news like this...
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5480498 Posted on: 10/11/2017 03:00 AM
Those CPUs were HEDT, and HEDT customers typically know what they're getting (the value of having a lot of cores makes up for relatively low clock speeds).
But haven't they detailed the full frequency tables on previous gen 6, 8, and 10 core parts?
Those CPUs were HEDT, and HEDT customers typically know what they're getting (the value of having a lot of cores makes up for relatively low clock speeds).
CitizenZero
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2014-04-30
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2014-04-30
#5480507 Posted on: 10/11/2017 03:41 AM
Scumbag move by Intel.
Scumbag move by Intel.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 2016-06-30
???
Can't tell if you're being serious or just trolling...