Asrock B550 PG Riptide review
be quiet! Dark Rock TF2 review
Basemark GPU v1.2 benchmarks with 36 GPUs
Corsair MP600 Pro XT PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
Teamgroup MP34Q 2TB NVMe SSD review
Lian Li SP750 (750W PSU) review
Teamgroup Cardea Z44Q 4TB NVMe SSD review
Asus ROG Swift PG32UQX monitor review
Plextor M10P 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD review
ASRock RX 6600 XT Phantom Gaming D 8GB OC 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...
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 3553
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 3553
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5480184 Posted on: 10/10/2017 01:16 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.
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
Senior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 2015-06-30
#5480189 Posted on: 10/10/2017 01:35 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.
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: 13511
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13511
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5480190 Posted on: 10/10/2017 01:36 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.
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: 1042
Joined: 2015-12-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2015-12-30
#5480191 Posted on: 10/10/2017 01:42 PM
They do state it's single core frequency on their website. Cleverly hidden within the ? next to Max Turbo Frequency.
They do state it's single core frequency on their website. Cleverly hidden within the ? next to Max Turbo Frequency.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13511
Joined: 2004-05-16
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.