I'm honestly getting a bit tired of all these new sockets.

I completely get what you're saying there, though I wasn't really thinking Intel would do this for all of their products, and absolutely not for servers. It is very important to have guaranteed consistency in servers (particularly mainframes) as they are heavily dependent upon thermal control and predictability. This is why server chips (to my knowledge) don't have boost clocks, and make a BIG deal about thermal throttling. Businesses yes, but not so much the average consumer. Keep in mind even for turbo'd CPUs, the stock heatsink Intel ships is what's supposed to guarantee your performance. Basically what Intel could do is drop base clock and say "this heatsink will guarantee you up to 2.6GHz in ideal conditions". Again - they're pretty much already doing what I'm saying, they're just advertising it differently.

A CPU shouldn't thermal throttle below their base clock under full load, if temps don't go down I would like it to shutdown, so I know something is wrong. Anyway, the "problem" originates from Intel selling policies. They should be binning all processors and selling them with properly (high) base clocks and adequate coolers at different price points. Instead, they just sell them all at the lower common base clocks with the higher price point and crappy coolers. All cores turbo speeds should not exist at all... and even a single core turbo should not get beyond +500Mhz (Isn't this pretty much what AMD is doing with Ryzen?)

No, it wouldn't - again, the limit is up to the user and/or other hardware. The TDP Intel advertises is the TDP of the base clocks, but we all know it doesn't stay running at the base clocks. So what's the difference? Also like I said before, there could still be other factors to limit the maximum speed such as the CPU power connector.

If I understand correctly, the concept of turbo boost was supposed to apply to situations where not all the CPU cores are fully utilized. So a 4790K has a turbo clock of 4.4 GHz, but only if two cores are maxed out (with all four cores maxed it only turbos to 4.2 GHz). Turbo boost is not supposed to exceed the TDP of the CPU, it just applies more speed to certain cores if there's room for it. Of course there is a way to make all cores run at the turbo speed, but I don't think that's Intel's intended setting. What you're suggesting is that Intel bump up the base clock of their CPUs to the turbo clock, but in this situation it not be possible to maintain the TDP of the CPU. This is synonymous with releasing a higher-clocked CPU that can run at those faster speeds, but I think they want to maintain a certain TDP rating for their consumer chips. Their HEDT chips have much higher TDP but we've already seen how difficult it is to cool the Core i9s.

The reason the baseclock is low is likely for yield reasons, even if 80% of chips sold exceed those numbers there will still be 20% that wont given the target tdp and temperature limits, just depends on how intel decides to bin the chips. Both the risk of chips not being able to meet a target tdp/temp and the risk of nonfunctional sections increases as the chip size grows due to the increased risk of defects. Given this new information about the 16core I will guess the 18core will likely have a base clock of 2.0-2.4 unless intel increases the tdp significantly. all i can say is well played amd, the 3.4ghz base frequency on threadripper will probably overcome any of the disadvantages it may have vs a monolithic die.

... So a 4790K has a turbo clock of 4.4 GHz, but only if two cores are maxed out (with all four cores maxed it only turbos to 4.2 GHz)...

I have 4790K, 4.4GHz is only when one core is used full and all others are below half usage... Btw, with water-cooling when used prime95 small test on all cores - it "turbo" at 3.9 GHz .... Only when you delide and heavy undervolt then on water cooling it perform acceptable...

A CPU shouldn't thermal throttle below their base clock under full load, if temps don't go down I would like it to shutdown, so I know something is wrong.

I agree, but it has happened with the stock cooler. I suspect this is why many OEMs tend to ship with beefier heatsinks.

Anyway, the "problem" originates from Intel selling policies. They should be binning all processors and selling them with properly (high) base clocks and adequate coolers at different price points. Instead, they just sell them all at the lower common base clocks with the higher price point and crappy coolers. All cores turbo speeds should not exist at all... and even a single core turbo should not get beyond +500Mhz (Isn't this pretty much what AMD is doing with Ryzen?)

Normally I would wholly agree, but Intel's yields are just plain good - there just simply aren't many bad parts to begin with. Most of their overclockable CPUs don't struggle. Obviously lower-quality binned parts that can't achieve the higher overclocks could just simply be sold as cheaper non-overclockable and slower parts. Again - this is pretty much what Intel already does.

If I understand correctly, the concept of turbo boost was supposed to apply to situations where not all the CPU cores are fully utilized. ... Turbo boost is not supposed to exceed the TDP of the CPU, it just applies more speed to certain cores if there's room for it.

That's how Turbo Boost used to work, and how it should have remained. Unless I am mistaken, the current generation (which is different from the example CPU you mentioned) by default will exceed TDP ratings whenever it gets the chance, and all cores can exceed the base clock if they all need to. This is why I really dislike the newer generations of it, because it's just an excuse for Intel to ship cheap heatsinks and not be responsible for excess thermals. I think this explains why you were confused about my idea, too. I don't know if this applies to laptops.

That's how Turbo Boost used to work, and how it should have remained. Unless I am mistaken, the current generation (which is different from the example CPU you mentioned) by default will exceed TDP ratings whenever it gets the chance, and all cores can exceed the base clock if they all need to. This is why I really dislike the newer generations of it, because it's just an excuse for Intel to ship cheap heatsinks and not be responsible for excess thermals. I think this explains why you were confused about my idea, too. I don't know if this applies to laptops.

It's the same functionality as it's always been. Turbo will boost certain cores when others are idle. The difference now is motherboards have control on whether or not they want to maximize turbo boost to allow all cores to boost at max turbo bins. By default most motherboards will maximize clocks for performance, but you can disable this to enforce default spec. Laptops never use this due to thermal/power constraints.

Anyone else getting XSS suspicious activity warnings on guru3D or is it just me?

I did expect this. Now, all the cheerleaders, please get this thing, and run it 24/7 @4GHz on all 16 cores. I can't wait to see you bursting through MB after MB.

MCM proves it's superior to monolithic chips. Intel's 16 core has weak base clocks and likely low boost clocks in Turbo. AMD wins this round. It won't be long until Intel can't compete with AMD's core count/clockspeed/price.

It matters little to intel. At least till AMD can compete in volume production.

It's the same functionality as it's always been. Turbo will boost certain cores when others are idle. The difference now is motherboards have control on whether or not they want to maximize turbo boost to allow all cores to boost at max turbo bins. By default most motherboards will maximize clocks for performance, but you can disable this to enforce default spec. Laptops never use this due to thermal/power constraints.

I don't think that's a new or recent feature. My previous (and now secondary) system is a 4790K on a MSI Z97 Gaming 7, and it has an "enhanced turbo" option in the BIOS. When enabled, my CPU runs at 4.4 GHz on all cores and pulls 105 watts, far beyond the 88W TDP in the specs. It was turned off my default (perhaps this is the difference now?) but I keep it turned on so I can maximize grid computing. I basically think of it as a convenient overclock, but I am running out of spec by enabling it, and I don't think it was the way turbo boost was supposed to be used. Then again, Intel sells unlocked CPUs while telling users not to overclock, and this might be a similar case.

Turbo will boost certain cores when others are idle.

No, it will turbo all cores if it needs to, but it just doesn't turbo to the maximum advertised rating (look at the table for 6th gen): https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005523.html So if that's supposed to remain under the CPU's TDP, why is it above the base clock?

The difference now is motherboards have control on whether or not they want to maximize turbo boost to allow all cores to boost at max turbo bins.

Which boards specifically don't?

Laptops never use this due to thermal/power constraints.

Yes they do, that's one of the reasons for getting an i5 or i7 laptop over an i3 (most laptop i3, i5, and i7 CPUs are dual cores with HT and lie in the same frequency range). Here's an example of an i5 you'll find in a laptop that has turbo speeds: https://ark.intel.com/products/95443/Intel-Core-i5-7200U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

No, it will turbo all cores if it needs to, but it just doesn't turbo to the maximum advertised rating (look at the table for 6th gen): https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005523.html So if that's supposed to remain under the CPU's TDP, why is it above the base clock?

The CPU can turbo on all cores, but only if the workload allows it. For instance, I've noticed that on the default configuration, my 4790K only boosts up to 4.1 GHz when all four cores are maxed out, whereas the specs show it boosting to 4.2 GHz. This is most likely due to the computing apps that I run, which typically uses a lot of floating-point data, which is more stressful on the CPU than other data types (e.g., integer). HWMonitor shows that the TDP is right up against the max TDP at this clock so it cannot go any higher. Even on turbo, the CPU is supposed to stay within the thermal design limits.

No, it will turbo all cores if it needs to, but it just doesn't turbo to the maximum advertised rating (look at the table for 6th gen): https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005523.html So if that's supposed to remain under the CPU's TDP, why is it above the base clock? Which boards specifically don't? Yes they do, that's one of the reasons for getting an i5 or i7 laptop over an i3 (most laptop i3, i5, and i7 CPUs are dual cores with HT and lie in the same frequency range). Here's an example of an i5 you'll find in a laptop that has turbo speeds: https://ark.intel.com/products/95443/Intel-Core-i5-7200U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

I'm aware that it will turbo on all cores. Intel spec will allow one turbo bin above base clock when all cores are under 100% load provided thermal and power are in check. The difference is default spec tries to keep it at TDP or below when turboing. All High end boards use that 'enhanced' turbo functionality. Maybe generic or low end chipset versions don't use it. Frankly I don't care either way, the high end boards allow you to disable it as you see fit. As for laptops, you misread what I meant. Of course they use turbo, but they do not use the same functionality of 'enhanced' turbo from high end boards use. AKA max turbo bin on all cores for improved performance.