• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Turbo boost 2.0 on Broadwell-E

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,505
1,489
126
How is that any different from regular turbo 3.0.
For instance, it sounds like (to me at least) that Intel is only "guaranteeing" that one of the cores can hit 4 Ghz on the 6850K reliably but not all of them. The Xeon should be able to work at 4 Ghz normally like most products turbo.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,528
940
126
Well that's very odd, because I would have thought that our BIOSes would be quite similar. Here you can see mine with every core at 100%, yet it still has every core at 3.8GHz:



Now in my experience with past mainstream quads, Turbo has never worked very well, but it did at least try. For example, the 2600k supposedly did 3.8 with a single core loaded, but in practice I only saw 3.7 or below, and it was all over the place. But with every core loaded, it always clocked down to 3.4 (or was it 3.5? - I think the base clock was raised 100MHz with turbo enabled). This one is doing the opposite.

Regarding the Turbo Boost 3.0, I know mine is enabled, because I can see the core prioritizing aspect of it working. UT2004 is a good candidate for testing, and here you can see it constrained to the "best" core as defined by intel in the core list of the Turbo CP.


(in case it isn't clear, that last graph in task manager is pegged at 100% - usually you'd see the load distributed across multiple graphs because windows is constantly shifting the thread)

So I don't know why the 4GHz clock is missing even though Turbo Boost 3.0 is clearly operating.

One other thing: With Broadwell-E, are the VID voltages being reported by HWiNFO actually VCORE? Because I thought VID was the target voltage level set by intel, and static for each clock state. These "VID" values are constantly fluctuating (subtly).
I don't think so. Scroll down further in the list of items in HWInfo and you should find one called "Vcore." The relationship between VID and Vcore is still the same as it always was. The new processors have moved the essential voltage regulation back to the motherboard, with what I think is some "new twist" for a complementary component in the processor.

I keep noticing that HWMonitor shows different information depending on the board and processor. so a reporting of VID as opposed to VCORE puzzled me at first. It is more verbose or informative on a Z68 than on my Z170 -- hence folks migrating to HWInfo for monitoring through OC tests. I also noticed in various forums I investigated for building my 6700K/Z170 that people are still confused about VID and Vcore.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY