Intel Will no Longer Disclose Multi-Core Turbo Boost Frequencies

[subbytna]

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.

1. Base Baseclock
2. Binned multi all-core clock turbo
3. 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???

 

[subbytna]

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

 

[subbytna]

@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

 

[subbytna]

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

 

[subbytna]

Yeah, but how many K CPU's have you seen that cannot overclock to at least the single core boost speed?

That's relevant to us who are tech heads and know what's what. My point is that to the average joe on the street, he thinks he's getting a monster chip (4.7 speeds) when in fact only one core will hit that and the rest of the chip, at stock won't get even close to that. Almost, to me anyway, it seems like a sales tactic to make it sound better than what it really is.

 

[subbytna]

How do you feel about nvidia boost 3.0?

You have a point I guess. It's similar but most graphics cards aren't advertised as running the full boost speeds, like Intel are now doing with their marketing of CPUs. Giving the implied top speed as the norm.

It's nothing to do with me, I know the difference and know that what they are claiming it's just the 1 core boost. I know how to get all cores performing the same speeds (overclocking) It's the normal person on the street, being hit by big numbers to make it sound more appealing than it really is, that I have a bit of a gripe with. Sneaky marketing, saying a truth, but making it out to be a lot more substantial than it really is.

It's like selling the FX8150 as a 8.4GHz cpu....just because 1 core hit 8.4 (albeit under liquid nitrogen cooling) it's not a true reflection of what the chip is capable of in day to day use.

As @DragonQ said, it's Intel touting the higher number to make it sound better.

 

[subbytna]

Oh, and this one is for @subbytna so which one is misleading marketing?

That's OCUK advertising.

I'm running an INTEL CPU and have done so since Core2Quads.

 

[subbytna]

Do you want me to pull your last 5 days posts, including those blaming even reviewers for hating Intel ?

Ouch

On a side note though, Jim at AdoredTV has went into this in a bit more detail about the "possible" and I say possible as INTEL certainly won't say why they are doing it, reasons for stopping advertising the all core numbers. I know he's a bit of an AMD fan but you can't deny his logic when looking deeper into why INTEL might be doing this. Worth a watch (26min video on youtube IIRC)

 

[subbytna]

I don't find it as strange as he does that the i5-8400 has such a low base clock speed, considering its lower TDP target. It'll be interesting to see what does actually happen when pairing these CPUs with the non-Z chipsets, i.e. whether they will still mostly run at 3.8 GHz all cores or not.

That's a good point, these were tested in high end Z motherboards, when the more budget boards are out, then the cpu might not get up to speeds they did on the Z boards.

 

[subbytna]

That's not my point though, that's what the whole second half of the video is about.

I must have mis-read your post.