Guru3D.com
  • HOME
  • NEWS
    • Channels
    • Archive
  • DOWNLOADS
    • New Downloads
    • Categories
    • Archive
  • GAME REVIEWS
  • ARTICLES
    • Rig of the Month
    • Join ROTM
    • PC Buyers Guide
    • Guru3D VGA Charts
    • Editorials
    • Dated content
  • HARDWARE REVIEWS
    • Videocards
    • Processors
    • Audio
    • Motherboards
    • Memory and Flash
    • SSD Storage
    • Chassis
    • Media Players
    • Power Supply
    • Laptop and Mobile
    • Smartphone
    • Networking
    • Keyboard Mouse
    • Cooling
    • Search articles
    • Knowledgebase
    • More Categories
  • FORUMS
  • NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT

New Reviews
MS Flight Simulator (2020): the 2021 PC graphics performance benchmark review
Radeon Series RX 6700 XT preview & analysis
Corsair MM700 & Corsair Katar Pro XT Review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - February 2021
ASUS GeForce RTX 3060 STRIX Gaming OC review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 XC Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X TRIO review
PALIT GeForce RTX 3060 DUAL OC review
ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3060 AMP WHITE review
Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact chassis review

New Downloads
GeForce 461.81 hotfix driver download
ClockTuner for Ryzen (CTR) v2.0 RC4 Download
SiSoft Sandra 20/21 download v31.12
Intel HD graphics Driver Download Version: DCH 27.20.100.9316
AIDA64 Download Version 6.32.5644 beta
FurMark Download v1.25
MSI Afterburner 4.6.3 Final Stable Download
Display Driver Uninstaller Download version 18.0.3.7
Guru3D RTSS Rivatuner Statistics Server Download 7.3.0 Final
Media Player Classic - Home Cinema v1.9.10 Download


New Forum Topics
11700K Retail Review AMD confirms that Resident Evil Village will have Ray Tracing support on PC Afterburner 4.6.3 Final Crash Is my Rtx 3090 dying? Radeon Pro win10 Samsung 980 SSD Spotted at retailers, has a DRAMless design VBIOS modded to 1000W for GeForce RTX 3090 Hall Of Fame (HOF) Edition did not yield much NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti to get limited for Cryptocurrency Mining Performance Also Nvidia shows signs ... MSI Afterburner .NET Class Library




Guru3D.com » News » Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 10/10/2017 08:09 AM | source: | 70 comment(s)
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.

  1. Base Baseclock
  2. Binned multi all-core clock turbo
  3. 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?

 

ProcessorCores / ThreadsBase ClockTurbo 2.0 (6c)Turbo 3.0 (1c)L3TDPPrice
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. 







« Microsoft halts development of Windows 10 Mobile · Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies · Review: Cooler Master MasterCase H500P PC case »

Related Stories

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...


14 pages « < 5 6 7 8 > »


Denial
Senior Member



Posts: 13235
Joined: 2004-05-16

#5480183 Posted on: 10/10/2017 12:16 PM
Is this really any different than what Nvidia/AMD do with their GPUs? Nvidia guarantees a base frequency and they give you a "typical clock" frequency, but the actual boosted numbers are dynamic depending on TDP in the given application, they don't guarantee a boosted number or even state it. Like with a 980Ti, depending on your ASIC quality, there could be swings up to 10% in performance compared to someone with the exact same chip - because a lower ASIC card would hit TDP at lower frequencies.

H83
Senior Member



Posts: 3379
Joined: 2009-09-08

#5480184 Posted on: 10/10/2017 12:16 PM
It is quite simple.

By stating all core boost to be 4.3 ghz they make a legal commitment. With Turbo 2.0 stating 4.3 every of their 8700(K) has to hit 4.3 ghz stable on all cores. Every 8700(K) that only hits 3.8~4.2ghz all core boost becomes a defective, non-sellable unit - or garbage, so to speak.

Ultimately Intel likely suffers from bad yields while AMD can crank it up quite easily in contrast.

Intel needs to back to the drawing board and rather quickly at that.

I could be wrong but i don´t think that´s the case here. I think more than 90% of 8700K can reach the 4,3ghz on all cores and the ones that can´t, can be sold as 8600K.
For me this is just a silly marketing ploy because big numbers sell!!! So for a normal person, a CPU that reaches 4,7Ghz is much better than one that reaches 4,3Ghz. Of course those speeds are under different conditions but the truth is that most people have no idea of what single core or multi core speeds mean anyway so Intel is going to take advantage of their ignorance.

For me this is just a perfect example of sleazy marketing.

moeppel
Senior Member



Posts: 153
Joined: 2015-06-30

#5480189 Posted on: 10/10/2017 12:35 PM
I could be wrong but i don´t think that´s the case here. I think more than 90% of 8700K can reach the 4,3ghz on all cores and the ones that can´t, can be sold as 8600K.
For me this is just a silly marketing ploy because big numbers sell!!! So for a normal person, a CPU that reaches 4,7Ghz is much better than one that reaches 4,3Ghz. Of course those speeds are under different conditions but the truth is that most people have no idea of what single core or multi core speeds mean anyway so Intel is going to take advantage of their ignorance.

For me this is just a perfect example of sleazy marketing.

Going with EU rights/laws I'd consider a 8700K being advertised as "4.7ghz CPU" to be misleading/false advertising unless it specifically stated that the frequency was single core only.

Thus, in terms of marketting I personally cannot see what is to gain here for Intel, unless we're talking about the really oblivious folk ;)

I have however not seen a box, so I don't quite know what's printed on there or what the 8700K gets advertised as as a shelf product.

Denial
Senior Member



Posts: 13235
Joined: 2004-05-16

#5480190 Posted on: 10/10/2017 12:36 PM
I could be wrong but i don´t think that´s the case here. I think more than 90% of 8700K can reach the 4,3ghz on all cores and the ones that can´t, can be sold as 8600K.
For me this is just a silly marketing ploy because big numbers sell!!! So for a normal person, a CPU that reaches 4,7Ghz is much better than one that reaches 4,3Ghz. Of course those speeds are under different conditions but the truth is that most people have no idea of what single core or multi core speeds mean anyway so Intel is going to take advantage of their ignorance.

For me this is just a perfect example of sleazy marketing.

Eh, i think it's more than that.

We're at the point again where we are rubbing up against the frequency wall and there are going to be certain apps where Intel isn't going to be able to boost all it's cores to 4.3 or whatever arbitrary 2.0 boost number they set, given a specified TDP. So you have OEM's building machines, validating the machines at specific TDPs and then if you go and say "well all our processors hit 4.3" and then there are apps where they can't without exceeding it - isn't that just as misleading? So the alternative would be set Turbo 2.0 boost frequencies to 4Ghz or something lower - but then every app where it could go higher, you'd be losing performance.

I think the solution for Intel to smooth things over is to do what Nvidia did and educate people on the issue (Tom Peterson talked about it on PC Per podcast/Anandtech) and perhaps list a "typical boost clock" or whatever Nvidia calls it. Like I remember when GPU Boost came out people were super against it, saying it's misleading, but if you think about it, it actually kind of makes sense to do it that way. There are going to be apps that hit the processors TDP instantly because they are utilizing AVX or whatever and then there are going to be apps that can boost the processor to 4.4/4.5, even if it's only for a couple seconds before dropping, because they aren't hitting TDP limit. And like how do you market that number? Outside of "this processor can boost between 4 and 4.8" or something, which is basically what they are doing anyway.

MaCk0y
Senior Member



Posts: 918
Joined: 2015-12-30

#5480191 Posted on: 10/10/2017 12:42 PM
They do state it's single core frequency on their website. Cleverly hidden within the ? next to Max Turbo Frequency. :D

14 pages « < 5 6 7 8 > »


Post New Comment
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.


Guru3D.com © 2021