TerraMaster F5-422 NAS Review
Radeon RX 6600 (Sapphire Pulse) review
Radeon RX 6600 (Gigabyte Eagle 8G) review
PowerColor Radeon RX 6900 XT Red Devil review
Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless mouse review
Far Cry 6: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Colorful GeForce RTX 3060 Bilibili 12G review
ACER Predator GM7000 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD review
be quiet! Shadow Rock SLIM 2 review
Asrock B550 PG Riptide 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...
AlmondMan
Senior Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 2007-09-03
Senior Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 2007-09-03
#5480211 Posted on: 10/10/2017 02:33 PM
Probably to "avoid confusion" - since if they have 3 different clocks normal people will just be confused all around. And it looks worse, too.
Probably to "avoid confusion" - since if they have 3 different clocks normal people will just be confused all around. And it looks worse, too.
Cave Waverider
Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: 2010-07-25
Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: 2010-07-25
#5480212 Posted on: 10/10/2017 02:40 PM
I guess without naming the all core boost frequency they could start selling CPUs with varying boost speeds on all cores depending on how stable the cores are. As long as one core is stable at the advertised frequency, they could cap the multi core boost if all cores aren't capable of whatever speed they used to target. Thus more units could pass validation this way and potentially be sold as a higher-end model at a higher price.
I guess without naming the all core boost frequency they could start selling CPUs with varying boost speeds on all cores depending on how stable the cores are. As long as one core is stable at the advertised frequency, they could cap the multi core boost if all cores aren't capable of whatever speed they used to target. Thus more units could pass validation this way and potentially be sold as a higher-end model at a higher price.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 779
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5480218 Posted on: 10/10/2017 03:00 PM
Ultimately Intel likely suffers from bad yields while AMD can crank it up quite easily in contrast.
AMD sells CPUs with basically no OC headroom (1800X has a "boost" of 4GHz, and if you're lucky in the die lottery you can OC that to 4.1, but not further), and you think they can "crank it up"?
Ultimately Intel likely suffers from bad yields while AMD can crank it up quite easily in contrast.
AMD sells CPUs with basically no OC headroom (1800X has a "boost" of 4GHz, and if you're lucky in the die lottery you can OC that to 4.1, but not further), and you think they can "crank it up"?
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 6073
Joined: 2011-01-02
Senior Member
Posts: 6073
Joined: 2011-01-02
#5480219 Posted on: 10/10/2017 03:06 PM
With even more luck in CPU overclockability, I'd expect more returns. Poor retailers.
With even more luck in CPU overclockability, I'd expect more returns. Poor retailers.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
There is perfectly good reason why not to let anyone know any solid number for this...
Quality variance between chips is way too high. And as consequence, different chips have different leakage and require different cooling or power delivery.
In other words once fully loaded, one chip may not be able to clock that high on all cores due to stability issues, other due to cooling solution and next due to VRMs on MB hitting their limit.
In such situation, any hard number on paper is bad number for intel. Too high and people complain that chips are not getting there, too low and people see those chips as not so good. Not giving numbers and giving good chips to reviewers = they do not provide any false info, reviewers will.
Basically this kind of marketing strategy hints that customers are there for lottery, and may end up being disappointed.