ok...
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
ok...
Soldato
Also the 8400 turbo isn't guaranteed but depends on circumstances including different chip.
Was a many pages discussion here, when Intel announced that they do not publish any but the base speed only, which in the case of the 8400 is 2.8Ghz. Any higher speeds is just roll of dice.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 2,225
Intel no longer publishes all core boost speeds, they have not said they no longer guarantee speeds for locked CPUs.
It's 100% speculation that it will be a 'roll of the dice'. No evidence
Last edited:
Informed speculation but Intel did say it would be a roll of the dice if you read the statement.
Intel never guaranteed any turbos, no company does. Them not publishing the turbo specifics apart from the max turbo means nothing and changes nothing for users.
The only guarantee you get frequency wise is the base clock, which is what they use to determine TDP.
They no longer do.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 2,225
Exactly. It changes nothing. I really don't understand why people think that i5-8400s will suddenly be so badly binned just so Intel can save some money. It makes little sense, especially when Intel knows they need to be more competitive with Ryzen around.
I take the underlined part to be in reference to differing motherboard features (such as MCE).
In yet another unexpected move Intel has made is clear that it will not be sharing any details anymore on the multi-core Turbo clock frequencies of their processors.
You might already have noticed it, Intel is only listing the highest Boost frequency, and not the rest. Here’s the thing, the recent generation processors basically have three main frequencies.
Intel from now on will only list the base and (1) and Single thread (3) turbo. As to why this is, remains uncertain, however many scenarios pop into mind. It might be a legal reason as they cannot guarantee the all core turbo on all processors.However, the longer I think about this, then an old routine kicks in .. what would be the most probable? Might it be that Intel likes that highest Turbo listed on their packaging a bit better for marketing and thus sales? I mean, it’s not unthinkable right? The guys frometeknix have a quote from Intel on this:
- Base Baseclock
- Binned multi all-core clock turbo
- Single thread turbo
“[W]e’re no longer disclosing this level of detail as its proprietary to Intel. Intel only specifies processor frequencies for base and single-core Turbo in our processor marketing and technical collateral, such as ARK, and not the multi-core Turbo frequencies. We’re aligning communications to be consistent. All Turbo frequencies are opportunistic given their dependency on system configuration and workloads.”
So a Core i7 8700 is now being listed as a 4.7 GHz processor. But considering that is just one thread, it really runs 4.3 GHz on all six cores.
Intel are using single core turbo speed to denote the performance. Kind of misleading when the small print says otherwise.
What Panos is saying is accurate.
They never did, having any kind of guarantee on TBT frequencies isn't even possible given how TBT works.
@southernorth Nothing to do with MCE, by opportunistic they mean that Turbo Boost frequencies depend on a variety of factors, like workloads, power, thermals, etc.
It really changes nothing and given the same conditions all of Intel's chips should turbo the same regardless of chipset.
They did. It was listed as all core turbo but I'm not sure what that has to do with Panos stating 2.8Ghz x6.
Soldato
Intel also advertise the i3 8100 as a 3.6GHz part, and it is just that, 3.6GHz on all cores, the base clock is 3.6GHz. The sole purpose of the change is due to the implementation of keeping the CPU's within the TDP specified, the 8100 at 3.6GHz is 65w, that's all cores, the 8400 is 65w, 2.8GHz on all cores, but there are 6 not 4 cores. Intel didn't want to raise the TDP on the CPU's too much so instead they backed off on the all core turbo speeds being listed. It's not hard for them to go from an i5 7400 at 65w, to an i3 8100 at 65w, but getting the i5 8400 in the same power envelope with two extra cores at the same TDP, not doable, at the same frequencies on all cores.
Going from the other angle, you've also got people stating power delivery will be an issue on cheaper boards, which we know can't be the case, otherwise the could not list them as 8700K compliant, since the base clock is 3.7GHz on 6-cores, which is pretty much the same speed as an all core boost on the 8400, of 3.8GHz. Binning is another one that seems to be brought up, this 14nm process is so mature now it's a great-grandparent, I'd be surprised if 95% of the silicone produced doesn't come out as fine for any CPU needed, whether that be the 6-core or 4-core parts.
No idea why people are so hell bent on thinking it's anything other than Intel's opportunity to make the CPU's look more power efficient than their competiors, or at least equivalent.
Going from the other angle, you've also got people stating power delivery will be an issue on cheaper boards, which we know can't be the case, otherwise the could not list them as 8700K compliant, since the base clock is 3.7GHz on 6-cores, which is pretty much the same speed as an all core boost on the 8400, of 3.8GHz. Binning is another one that seems to be brought up, this 14nm process is so mature now it's a great-grandparent, I'd be surprised if 95% of the silicone produced doesn't come out as fine for any CPU needed, whether that be the 6-core or 4-core parts.
No idea why people are so hell bent on thinking it's anything other than Intel's opportunity to make the CPU's look more power efficient than their competiors, or at least equivalent.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 2,225
Can you find any official Intel anything where they say they guarantee any Turbo clock? They also never listed their all core turbos in Ark or through any retail channels. The only thing they do guarantee is base clock, and then you have the maximum turbo specified as an "up to".
@southernorth I think by system configuration they're eluding more to cooling rather than motherboard. Though I can imagine there could be some extreme cases with a too weak PSU or a motherboard maker releases something not up to spec on the power delivery front.
Yeah I did mention some chips dont suffer. It was clear something had changed when Coffee lake went live on ark.
The statement and fact Intel are pulling desktop chips from a laptop design and using a convoluted binning strategy to provide for 3 market with subsets of each is the reason why questions are asked àbout the desktop. When you understand what Intel are doing the situation makes sense. Intel can charge more form using the best chips in other markets. It's a smart move. Sacrifice the market that makes the least amount of profit to promote the ones that make the most money.
The statement and fact Intel are pulling desktop chips from a laptop design and using a convoluted binning strategy to provide for 3 market with subsets of each is the reason why questions are asked àbout the desktop. When you understand what Intel are doing the situation makes sense. Intel can charge more form using the best chips in other markets. It's a smart move. Sacrifice the market that makes the least amount of profit to promote the ones that make the most money.
@jigger speculation that's not rooted in reality.
Their binning strategy and yields are also closely guarded secrets, do you work for Intel by any chance?
Unless we have actual reviews/articles proving something changed, any speculation on supposed changes is just, speculation.
Their binning strategy and yields are also closely guarded secrets, do you work for Intel by any chance?
Unless we have actual reviews/articles proving something changed, any speculation on supposed changes is just, speculation.
@jigger speculation that's not rooted in reality.
Their binning strategy and yields are also closely guarded secrets, do you work for Intel by any chance?
Unless we have actual reviews/articles proving something changed, any speculation on supposed changes is just, speculation.
You're clutching at straws taking that line of defence.
Intel have told us about the change. What more conformation would you need.
??? You're the one coming up with conspiracy theories/speculation like this:
Prove it or link to articles/reviews that do.
Prove it or link to articles/reviews that do.
