Intel Turbo Boost 3.0 ?!

[Magic Carpet]

Hasn't seen updates in a while. Any speculation on what might be next in store with it (if at all)?

 

[Dave3000]

I actually don't want a turbo boost feature in future CPU's. I'd just like to see one stock clock speed and that's it, like the days of the Core 2 series and earlier. I noticed that turbo boost can confuse some people with their chips. For example someone that owns an i5 4670k runs Coretemp and see's the chip running at 3.6GHz while running Prime 95 and tells me that he thought that it should be running at 3.4GHz and then I tell him that the 3.6GHz is the turbo boost when all 4 cores are active. Or someone that see's a 4770k chip advertised to turbo up to 3.9GHz, wonders why their 4770k chip is not turboing to 3.9GHz during a Prime 95 run and that's because only on 2 cores active it will run at 3.9GHz.

 

[Idontcare]

Personally, seeing what kind of headroom Intel has been leaving on the table with their 32nm and 22nm CPUs, I really wish they'd get serious about pursuing the original spirit of turbo-boost and deliver on it.

Take that single thread, single-core, situation and boost the clockspeed to 4.5GHz or 5GHz and really make the performance sizzle.

If people are confused by turbo-boost then they are probably the same people who look at the speedometer on their dashboard and really believe their Honda Civic can go 160mph since that is the top listed speed on the speedometer.

Don't let people who are dumb enough to have first-world problems dictate the solutions to the rest of us.

 

[Cogman]

I actually don't want a turbo boost feature in future CPU's. I'd just like to see one stock clock speed and that's it, like the days of the Core 2 series and earlier. I noticed that turbo boost can confuse some people with their chips. For example someone that owns an i5 4670k runs Coretemp and see's the chip running at 3.6GHz while running Prime 95 and tells me that he thought that it should be running at 3.4GHz and then I tell him that the 3.6GHz is the turbo boost when all 4 cores are active. Or someone that see's a 4770k chip advertised to turbo up to 3.9GHz, wonders why their 4770k chip is not turboing to 3.9GHz during a Prime 95 run and that's because only on 2 cores active it will run at 3.9GHz.

Core 2 cpus had throttling.

Also, Intel's use of throttling is pretty smart. Why do you want a static speed? So it is easier to report a number? Intel has made their CPUs fit a thermal envelope and self optimize for various workloads by manipulating a number that 99% of their users can't even find out on their own. They have lowered power consumption and increased performance for their users.

 

[Dave3000]

Personally, seeing what kind of headroom Intel has been leaving on the table with their 32nm and 22nm CPUs, I really wish they'd get serious about pursuing the original spirit of turbo-boost and deliver on it.

Take that single thread, single-core, situation and boost the clockspeed to 4.5GHz or 5GHz and really make the performance sizzle.

If people are confused by turbo-boost then they are probably the same people who look at the speedometer on their dashboard and really believe their Honda Civic can go 160mph since that is the top listed speed on the speedometer.

Don't let people who are dumb enough to have first-world problems dictate the solutions to the rest of us.

Windows hardly uses only 1 core consistently and leaves the others idle. So if one core was set to turbo to 4.5GHz and the other cores were turboed at a much lower frequency, wouldn't that create stuttering in CPU bound single threaded games? Even on single cores apps, the 2nd cores frequently gets activated due to processes running in the background in Windows.

 

[blackened23]

I actually don't want a turbo boost feature in future CPU's. I'd just like to see one stock clock speed and that's it, like the days of the Core 2 series and earlier. I noticed that turbo boost can confuse some people with their chips. For example someone that owns an i5 4670k runs Coretemp and see's the chip running at 3.6GHz while running Prime 95 and tells me that he thought that it should be running at 3.4GHz and then I tell him that the 3.6GHz is the turbo boost when all 4 cores are active. Or someone that see's a 4770k chip advertised to turbo up to 3.9GHz, wonders why their 4770k chip is not turboing to 3.9GHz during a Prime 95 run and that's because only on 2 cores active it will run at 3.9GHz.

If your cores behave this way during turbo, your cooling is inadequate or your BIOS is configured improperly. On asus motherboards you can align all cores to turbo at the same speed. When I turbo on my 3770, all cores are at 4.7ghz. I have built 4770k and 3930k systems with ASUS motherboards that also turbo all cores at the same speed regardless of what the application is.

Some motherboards handle turbo differently - I don't know what board you have but if you have such turbo issues it is a BIOS or motherboard issue. You can configure all cores to align during turbo frequencies so long as your cooling isn't bad. I suggest looking into an updated BIOS for your motherboard or outright buying a new motherboard. I have not built for myself or friends a system in the past two years with such turbo behavior.

Additionally, if you're saying you want to idle at turbo speeds? I don't agree at all. The great majority of your time in windows is doing rudimentary tasks which doesn't require anywhere near turbo frequencies. Running 24/7 turbo would just have detrimental effects on heat and noise. But the salient point here, is your turbo woes are related entirely to your motherboard. Different motherboards handle turbo differently. Asus boards are configured by default to turbo all at the same speed regardless of how threaded the application is. I was under the impression that other motherboards were similar in that respect but apparently not.

 

[jpiniero]

Take that single thread, single-core, situation and boost the clockspeed to 4.5GHz or 5GHz and really make the performance sizzle.

The yield would suck. Plus, Intel doesn't want to end up in a situation where (for instance) Skymont can't hit 4 Ghz and it loses to an earlier gen product which could turbo higher.

 

[Smartazz]

Turbo boost is really good on a laptop. My laptops 3720qm can hold its own against my 4.6GHz 2500K.

 

[Xpage]

The yield would suck. Plus, Intel doesn't want to end up in a situation where (for instance) Skymont can't hit 4 Ghz and it loses to an earlier gen product which could turbo higher.

i would hope that Intel figure that they can determine which core is the best for turboing and make that core CPU0, they get 4 shots before it goes to the lower non 4.5ghz bin but still top end, just not top end + XYZ permium