Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

Why did Intel increase mainstream CPU core count to 6 if they firmly believe only the single core performance matters? It would have made more sense to drop the core count to 2 and try to clock it up to 6-7GHz following this logic.

 

More shady dealing from Intel. Personally I see one main reason for this- Yields. They squueze as much as possible out of their 14nm process, which results in bad yields, inability for all cores to perform equally, excessive heat, and Intel marketing becoming more inconsistent and shady. Ryzen really gives them a worry as of late, due to that we see this hectic behavior both on their recent linup releases and inconsistent marketing.

AMD really did shake Intel's foundation, lets see what other shady cards Intel has in it's sleeve.

And for me yet another reason to switch to Ryzen, can't wait till February.

 

@Kaarme/cryhellinc
+1

nice to see you guys didnt drink the blue kool aid as some others in this forum have....

 

I may criticize AMD a lot, but this takes the cake.

 

AMD circlejerk finally found an article they can release some steam after Coffeelake wrecked the entire Ryzen lineup.

 

wanky marketing as per usual, the sad part is that who ever thought to do this is probably getting a raise if it works.

also proprietary my ass.

 

@krakenxt
being more expensive? check
being only up for one chipset cycle? check
running hotter? check

ryzen will offer more cores at lower price than the i5 is going for, and as long as ppl are not interested in MT perf, it can even be more cheap than intel..
besides the fact that those not upgrading every year will have a nice platform to upgrade the cpu in a few years without having to change the rest (at higher cost).

not sure what you mean by wrecked entire lineup...

 

I guess it makes good reviews even more important then, and not buying before you have read them.

 

"wrecked" in accordance to Whom? I hardly call your biased opinion a source of relevant information. Fanboy all you want, without AMD you would still sit on i7 8700k as quad core.

Don't forget a simple fact that Intel is exploiting this technology process for several years now, while Ryzen is not even a year old. What does this tell us? Unless Intel will devise a brand new architecture on a new process, we will see more of the same down the road. Ryzen on the other hand is just a first step.
Im looking forward to comparisons of Ryzen re-release this February and 8700k.

Personally I rather stick with solid platform for years to come, then jump a chipset every release with lame shady excuses as to why we can't keep previous "generation" chipset.

 

This looks like a clear case of misleading the consumer. If I want to buy a multicore CPU and see its boost frequency of 4.7Ghz, I expect all cores to be able to do that. I smell a court case in the EU for Intel in the near future.

 

Goes well along with Intel's decision to strictly restrict the sites it supplies with review samples and refuse even communication with all the other sites.

You can bet the sites Intel selects are the ones dancing to a blue tune. Fortunately Guru3D and others still get stuff from non-Intel sources so that we get an objective look at thing.

Intel has an army of lawyers like all big tech companies with lots of patents. I'm sure they can fill the product packaging with suitable disclaimers and inform retailers to tell customers the boost frequency only applies to old single core applications and in modern multicore cases it's something totally different. After that it's the retailer burning if somebody is disappointed.

 

@Vananovion
define "boost frequency".
as long as they state that its for ST/SC only, no issue.

 

What is next we can expect from Intel ??? Hiding altogether freq of their CPU's or can we expect good ole Intel paying OEM and retailers to not carry CPU's from the Amd ??? It wouldn't be anything new from them

 

I mean this is just a very odd and strange move... it isn't like their all core turbo is even bad? so i don't get why they would do this... not to mention tech sites who review these products can just find out what they all boost up to anyway...

Just seems like they want more control over how the general public see it, many companies and businesses seem to be doing this now... just a very strange move when we the consumers want them to give us more information so we are more informed not less...

But hopefully even with this tech sites like Guru3D will still be able to tell us how the cores all turbo up

In the EU you can do small claims courts which it won't matter how many lawyers they have, they will just get done by what the law says and have to pay X amount of money.... mind you it might be like 50 euro's or something tiny for a small product like this.

 

All I see is a bunch of people who simply don't get it.

 

It doesnt matter. Reviews will reveal the actual performance. If Intel doesnt want to lose sales to AMD, they will have to make sure their buyers are not shafted due to unexpected shortcomings in performance. If its to cover inconsistencies in boost clocks, they still have to ensure their products are good enough in the end.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. I think this could fall under the Unfair Commercial Practices directive, Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ucp/pu...blic.directive.browse2&elemID=227#article_209). Looked at some of the cases and there have been fines for stuff like "disclaimer unintelligible to the average consumer" and "disclosing information on promotional medium and not the product itself" etc. Guess it all comes down to how Intel covers its ass, but even hordes of lawyers can make a mistake or an ommission and open up way for litigation. Also a court may still take an issue due to different interpretation. It's not unprecedented.

In any case, I think we can all agree that this move is only meant to mislead the average customer, no matter how legally covered Intel is.

 

The hell are they playing at?!

 

Ugh another reason to buy a K model and just set the frequency you want.
From the other side WTF Intel really? What are they trying to hide? That they can't hit big clocks on all cores for more than 1-2 secs or something?