Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

subbytna · 10 Oct 2017 at 14:24

Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

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.

Base Baseclock

Binned multi all-core clock turbo

Single thread turbo

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 from eteknix have a quote from Intel on this:

“[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.

Marketing scam or what! Thoughts???

Martini1991 · 10 Oct 2017 at 14:51

Only listing the base clock and single threaded clock is probably the best thing?
The whole multi core boost thing is inconsistent already. I don't agree with the marketing. But the whole boost clock makes no sense anyway.

Rroff · 10 Oct 2017 at 14:56

Pulling that info and/or not listing in in ARK seems really bad to me - one of the things Intel did well was ARK and was a positive when they responded to complaints about the formatting of it and reverted to the older style which was more usable.

Not so bothered on the marketing side as to most people that info isn't particularly meaningful but it would be disappointing to see them extend that to technical resources.

beany_bot · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:00

Will they disclose what brand of toothpaste they use between the die and the IHS?

Martini1991 · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:01

See. Reason I don't see the big deal with this is because of how flaky the multi core is in terms of boost. Is it more wrong to list something that isn't actually guaranteed? Again I see it as no different to the PD chips, they're advertised as base clock and their highest turbo

AndreiD · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:05

@Rroff Don't think they ever disclosed all core turbo on Ark, they only gave you the base frequency and max turbo.
They had this obscure article in their support section, but that's about it.

@beany_bot The stuff they us is actually pretty high quality Dow Corning polymer TIM, it's supposed to be optimized for long term stability rather than thermal conductivity though.

And I reckon this move is due to motherboard makers setting all core turbo as the base CPU frequency by default (ex: ASUS with their multicore enhancement) and causing the CPUs to run out of spec and cause inconsistencies in reviews.

subbytna · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:06

I see it as a bit of marketing spin to make it sound superior (bigger numbers must mean better) to the average Joe buying a cpu.

We, on here, know the difference and use hardware and software to test and play with clock speeds but most users will think that a 6 core cpu advertised at 4.7....will run full pelt on all cores at 4.7

AndreiD · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:08

@subbytna How is it marketing spin when they've always advertised only the base frequency and max turbo?

GWANGY · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:08

yes multo core speed cannot be gtd so they would have to show the lowest speed rather than say an average speed, so to not fall foul of any regs they will simply omit the spec.
And maybe they cannot get good MC speeds unless some serious cooling is being used... :shrug:

subbytna · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:09

AndreiD said:
@subbytna How is it marketing spin when they've always advertised only the base frequency and max turbo?

make it sound superior (bigger numbers must mean better) to the average Joe buying a cpu

Minstadave · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:11

As multithreaded software is becoming more and more commonplace max single core turbo is largely irrelevant. I’d be much more interested in all core turbo.

AndreiD · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:11

@subbytna Literally this changes nothing when it comes to how they've been advertising their CPUs for close to a decade now, not to mention AMD does the same, they don't advertise multi-core turbo, just the base frequency and maximum turbo.

subbytna · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:15

I'm just a bit suspicious of INTEL and when I read stuff like this then I think of an ulterior motive behind it. My thinking, right or wrongly, was that it appears to be more a marketing tweak to make the CPU sound fast, to the average buyer

Rroff · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:23

AndreiD said:
@Rroff Don't think they ever disclosed all core turbo on Ark, they only gave you the base frequency and max turbo.

Ah for some reason thought they were removing all but the single core turbo clocks from info :s

jigger · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:26

Probably to make the chips look better against Ryzen. You can no longer say Ryzen beats Intel with 1 Ghz less clock speed.

gavinh87 · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:30

Must everything end up as a intel vs ryzen thread lol.
As Andrei has pointed out, it looks like nothing has changed.

Hagar · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:31

AndreiD said:
And I reckon this move is due to motherboard makers setting all core turbo as the base CPU frequency by default (ex: ASUS with their multicore enhancement) and causing the CPUs to run out of spec and cause inconsistencies in reviews.

+1 makes bclk OC on 8400 harder to predict as well.

jigger · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:35

So the performance will depend on the quality of the bin. Welcome back to buying CPUs based on batch codes. Might be some really big differences in performance. Well for the top end K parts at least.

jigger · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:42

subbytna said:
Marketing scam or what! Thoughts???

The best chips head to laptops.

AndreiD · 10 Oct 2017 at 15:45

@jigger Depends on what you mean by best, they most likely use the chips with low leakage characteristics to make their mobile SKUs, and the high leakage ones go to the K parts since those will reach higher frequencies.