Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. TieSKey

    TieSKey Member Guru

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    67
    GPU:
    Gtx870m 3Gb
    The problem is consistency, well, the lack of it. To get the base clocks higher u need each core on each cpu to be able to get that high on fixed power and cooling parameters. Even if "most" previous generations 4-core chips could get high all core turbos, they all used different amounts of power and cooling, so would need to pack the highest performing cooling solution.
    In other words, they just test the cores on a chip can get to a given turbo for 1ms without exploding and then throw the problem of finding the right power/cooling and clock limits to us......
     
  2. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    But like I was saying before, consistency isn't an issue unless you're using the stock heatsink and a very crappy PSU. My brother's PC has a quad core Xeon with HT and the stock heatsink. The heatsink is (to my annoyance) completely coated with dust, and yet the CPU can maintain turbo speeds on all cores just fine. You have to have really bad TDP issues in order for boost speeds to fluctuate enough for Intel to claim variability is an issue. If TDP consistency becomes that much of an issue, there's a good chance it is going to fail prematurely due to other quality problems. Granted, my brother's Xeon doesn't get reach the 4GHz range and Intel is finally going beyond 4 threads for mainstream products (more cores adds more variables). But as stated before, Intel has the time and money to refine their products to remain more stable. There is no good excuse for this.

    The only reason Intel keeps pushing these high turbo speeds is because it's an effortless way for them to make their product seem better than previous generations and the competition. But the fact of the matter is, Intel may be pushing them too high, and as a result they can't promise results anymore. This is starting to look like the P4 "GHz wars" again.
     
  3. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    It's not that surprising, really. With higher core counts, the all-core turbo would have to be lower than the quad-cores. It's probably best for Intel not to advertise them.

    Different workloads put different strains on the CPU. A CPU that's doing mostly integer work will product less heat and consume less power than when it's doing floating-point work. Different instruction sets will also produce different strain on the CPU, which is why the base and boost clocks on the Core i9 are so far apart (AVX-512 work is extremely stressful, so Intel can only guarantee a relatively low base clock). It also has little to do with throttling - the limiting factor is the TDP.
     
  4. Size_Mick

    Size_Mick Master Guru

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    412
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 1070 8GB
    This makes me wonder -- Is the single-turbo core a different one on each processor, depending on how it tests out? Or is it ALWAYS core #1?

    Followup question: Is core #1 ALWAYS the same physical core, or can they label any of them core #1?
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    But like I said before: why is this now an issue? I completely get what you're saying, but this isn't a new "problem". What you said has always been true, the only difference is Intel uses more cores at higher speeds. But if doing that compromises stability and consistency, then maybe they shouldn't do it.

    Are you asking if the single tuboed core is always the same physical core? Because if so, the answer is no - watch Task Manager during an intensive single-threaded task and you'll see it swap cores once in a while. Windows doesn't seem to do core swapping as often as other OSes, but it does do it.
     
  6. waltc3

    waltc3 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    454
    GPU:
    AMD 50th Ann 5700XT
    Of course--it's marketing... What else? Intel wants to create the impression that its cpus run at a higher MHz speed than they actually do. Simple as that. Believe it or not, some people really do believe that the only difference among competing cpus is the MHz clock... As for why they are doing this only *now*, that is surely obvious, is it not?...;)
     
  7. fry178

    fry178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    264
    GPU:
    2080S WaterForceWB
    I would say its a combo of everything mentioned here.
    Mainly clever marketing to look better (but the intel does x.xx GHz..), hide possible issues with clocks/yields.

    and as they can't beat amd in price and/or core count, it's the least expensive option.
     
  8. Reddoguk

    Reddoguk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    288
    GPU:
    RTX3090 GB GamingOC
    It's a multi-core Proc of course i want to know what all my cores boost to. You've got 6 cores 12 threads but Intel only want to tell you what one core can do. Intel are becoming very shallow if you ask me. Poor idiots will see 4.7 on the box and think that's what all cores can do.
     
  9. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    It's now an issue because they are including more cores with only a minor change to TDP. Running 6 cores @ 95W (8700K) is a lot harder than 4 cores @ 91W (7700K), and it will only get worse as they add more cores. I think they're worried that people will see a slower all-core turbo clock on their newer chips and not want to buy them.
     
  10. george1976

    george1976 Member

    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Radeon R9290
    Marketing, 4.3 ghz is dangerously close to AMD's 4 ghz.
    But when the "informed" buyer sees 4.7 ghz, will say: can I have 2 of these please?
     

  11. Fediuld

    Fediuld Master Guru

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    321
    GPU:
    AMD 5700XT AE
    Also the reviews have shown that at 1080p it takes a GTX1080ti for their product to show any performance gains, over CPUs half the price and 4/5th of the clock speeds, like the Ryzen 5. Any lesser CPU, even a GTX1080, all are equal.

    However 1080Ti is a GPU that many will find stupid idea to use at 1080p and not 2560x1440 or 3440x1440. Where again CPUs performance is levelled.
     
    Aura89 likes this.
  12. Jorge Nascimento

    Jorge Nascimento Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GTX 980TI
    Intel has already been surpassed by AMD in August 2017, the volume of sales of their CPU family surpassed INTEL, and that's just consumer CPU, Server is another story and even without knowing the sales volumes of EPIC i see tons of major companies worldwide changing to EPIC servers.
     
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    But haven't they detailed the full frequency tables on previous gen 6, 8, and 10 core parts?

    Mind providing a source showing Epyc sales? I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know where to find that kind of info because I'm curious about such statistics.
     
  14. NAMEk

    NAMEk Master Guru

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Gainward/GTX560/2GB
    I doubt frequency wars will cut it again. We become more and more educated everyday.
     
  15. pimpineasy

    pimpineasy Master Guru

    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    1050ti/Rx570
    lol they just copy amd all time since x32_x64. they even steal their apu. idk why they try an lie to consumer? I already got pissed at amd about this with apu's.. just left a shitty newegg review, nonetheless, it is bull crap.

    My amd laptop is 2.4ghz an 2.8ghz boost apu but it downclock to 1.4 when any 3d acceleration.

    My A8 - 7600 downclocks from 3.8ghz boost to 3.2ghz to 2.4ghz.

    so i got a 1.4ghz and 2.4ghz processor. i when i new for fact i wanted 2.8-3.2 because even my fk $40 phone with better battery life then my laptop has 2.2ghz processor multicore.

    Both these procs dont mention that fact! only list TURBO BOOST BULL crap just sell unlocked procs only wtf with just old school ghz rating?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017

  16. Arbie

    Arbie Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    58
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6GB
    Obviously just trolling. He's probably 14 years old and has zero technical knowledge - just a big anonymous mouth. These kind of people enjoy screwing up things like forums, that others are trying to use and that some have worked hard to provide.
     
  17. Venix

    Venix Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    807
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    i can see already the box 4.7ghz 1core / 4.3ghz all cores or something like that :p
     
  18. fry178

    fry178 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,738
    Likes Received:
    264
    GPU:
    2080S WaterForceWB
    @schmidtbag
    i know at least for germany (europe; dont remember) that sales were +50% of the cpu market a while ago.


    really funny, ppl that call me "troll" in other intel posts are surprisingly silent on news like this...
     
  19. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Those CPUs were HEDT, and HEDT customers typically know what they're getting (the value of having a lot of cores makes up for relatively low clock speeds).
     
  20. CitizenZero

    CitizenZero Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Twin Frzr OC
    Scumbag move by Intel.
     

Share This Page