Editorial On Intel's Decision to no Longer Disclose All-core Turbo

[Steevo]

If they could sell a CPU at 4Ghz and 700Mhz boost to all cores and 1Ghz boost on two cores reliably off ever wafer, they would.

It seems more like they are.

1) Binning with more flaws and higher voltages. Salvage more dies that have higher power consumption, or lower clock potential.
2) Screwing with overclockers.
3) Protecting their product. Preventing overclocking on more boards.
4) Trying to make more money. People will be pushed to buy higher priced parts to ensure performance.

 

[JackOne]

Intentionally removing information to deceive customers, this is what it looks like to me. And by now it is also very obvious. They can't guarantee those high clocks and that's why they're removing the information, so that people don't know what to think of it. Most people will see reviews where these hand picked CPUs will perform greatly, buy them and find out they're not as good as they seemed to be, or they will not find out, having bought something that never performed as they thought it would.

The reason why Intel is doing this is two-fold:

One, they can't guarantee clocks based on different systems people use (cooling, etc). That's what they said.

Two, they wan't people to think these CPUs are better than they are in reality, in average. They didn't lose a word about varying CPU quality. This is what I call deceptive behaviour.

 

[OSdevr]

As I see it it's mostly deceptive to the average consumer. If a chip is listed as 4.7 GHz boost they will assume that means all cores, not just one. Yes it will also make the silicon lottery worse but overclocking is by it's nature uncertain and not guaranteed by the chip maker.

 

[Hood]

"All Turbo frequencies are opportunistic given their dependency on system configuration and workloads." This is a fair description of why it's not feasible (or prudent) to publish these specs. Too many variables to account for every scenario, and guarantee all turbo levels, now that they're more complicated. Half of the posters in this thread illustrate the other obvious reason to stop publishing these specs - the people who bitch about everything on tech sites and social media, and even make up highly unlikely scenarios, like the ones mentioned by the OP. Anything's possible, but why would Intel "shoot itself in the foot" by binning down to the point where a K series CPU wouldn't overclock at all? Many people will read this and start spouting off about how Intel's CPUs won't overclock, and how only idiots would buy Intel chips, now that AMD is so much better. Raevenlord, you're not getting better at slipping in FUD, still just as obvious - maybe more practice will help. As a staff news editor, you should probably keep your biases out of your posts, because when you display them, TPU as a whole loses credibility among the more knowledgeable members and guests. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just think you could tone it down a bit.

 

[xkm1948]

Another reason for new system builders to go RyZen I guess.

If RyZen+ allows regular 4.2~4.5GHz OC it would be a serious game changer.

 

[Solid State Brain]

This is a multi-faceted issue.

- Actually achieveable performance on non-K/non-overclockable Intel CPUs might largely depend on the motherboard model/manufacturer.
- With "core enhancement" features enabled under stock settings, overclocked CPUs are being tested against non-overclocked CPUs in reviews.
- CPUs getting overclocked means they could be exceeding their TDP by a large margin (GamersNexus saw +40% power usage from the 8700K), so not just the performance, the stated TDP too becomes misleading.

 

[R-T-B]

I Can See Intel issuing DMCA Take down notice's for hardware Sites that Test and then Publish such results for CPU Core Speeds that Differ in the information Intel now Chose to make public

Numbers aren't copyright protected, and that's what core speeds are.

Otherwise we'd still be be using *86 CPUs, with * being the generation. Why do you think Intel got rid of 486 as soon as they realized they couldn't copyright it? "Pentium" couldn't come soon enough.

 

[RejZoR]

I know why intel has done this. They don't have the general core count advantage, but they have very high single core turbo clocks. They're gonna push that to make noobs think all the cores clock so high making them better than Ryzen which doesn't clock as high, but their clocks are honest and for all cores...

 

[RejZoR]

Numbers aren't copyright protected, and that's what core speeds are.

Otherwise we'd still be be using *86 CPUs, with * being the generation. Why do you think Intel got rid of 486 as soon as they realized they couldn't copyright it? "Pentium" couldn't come soon enough.

That's BS. Peugeot has copyrighted car number sequences with zero in the middle (308, 408, 508) and Porsche copyrighted 911 number. It's only within the car industry segment, but so could be 486 in CPU segment...

 

[Prima.Vera]

guess I just never cared about Turbo Core because it was a function introduced in the 90s.

Jeeeezus Was there anyone in the world keeping the Turbo button off at the case?

 

[londiste]

Intel only published information about Kaby Lake turbo speeds last month (article says Sep 1st, I have a feeling it might actually have been later than that). If I remember correctly, Skylake also had the same details popping up after a sizable delay. Turbo speeds for number of loaded cores has never been in ARK anyway. In ARK, there have always been Base and Max Turbo clocks. Missing information that detailed is nothing new, Intel has just now stated that they do not intend to publish that, nothing more, nothing less.

ARK: https://ark.intel.com/products/97129/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_50-GHz
Turbo Boost Frequency Table: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005523/processors.html

 

[jigar2speed]

So non K version of CPUs are going suck even more than usual, got it Intel.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

Just right after the loss of the previous CEO , they come out whit this BULLSHIT clap clap Intel.
Consumer with brain are more clever that you think.

 

[dorsetknob]

Numbers aren't copyright protected, and that's what core speeds are.

Not so much about the numbers being Copyright protected
but Intel and their legal team would Claim its the Information that's concerned is Copyrighted (and that would include the numbers)

 

[john_]

Intel doesn't disclose turbo frequencies, Nvidia is locking the frequencies of 1070 Ti, if the latest rumors become a fact at October 26th.

So, what do we have? Locked processors that would not have the same performance across the board and the start of an era in graphics cards where things will be like the Intel platform, with more expensive UNlocked "X" models and cheaper Locked models. They both take advantage of AMD's inability to raise frequencies in both CPUs and GPUs.

 

[RejZoR]

Jeeeezus Was there anyone in the world keeping the Turbo button off at the case?

That Turbo button really only existed because some games ran too fast and you had to slow them down by turnin Turbo OFF. Though I'm not sure why it wasn't called "SlowDown Button". Every normal person kept it ON at all times...

 

[dorsetknob]

I'm not sure why it wasn't called "SlowDown Button".

marketing because Turbo sounds fast and if you were to advertise a button to Slow your PC down Who wants to know or use that

 

[londiste]

Intel doesn't disclose turbo frequencies

While we are at this topic, care to link to an AMD document about Ryzen/Threadripper turbo frequencies table?

 

[I No]

Wow ... so much drama over something that might raise legal concerns to the company yet everyone's calling it shady like said company OWES them anything .... it's a business that wants to protect themselves from the average Joe that might sue them over 1 Mhz of frequency. I would do the same unless I want to run the whole damn establishment into the ground.

 

[R-T-B]

Wow ... so much drama over something that might raise legal concerns to the company yet everyone's calling it shady like said company OWES them anything ....

Uh, they sold you a product so they do technically owe you something.

Not sure turbo guarantees are part of it, that's up for debate, but this statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way. The nature of a commercial transaction is that the company does indeed owe you a product and services associated with it.

 

[RejZoR]

marketing because Turbo sounds fast and if you were to advertise a button to Slow your PC down Who wants to know or use that

Because you could call it "Compatibility" button...

 

[EarthDog]

Amazing what people can manage to read between the lines and determine as fact...Need to invest in tinfoil.

Question... how many flat earth people frequent this forum? Feels like it would be an inordinate amount.

 

[I No]

Uh, they sold you a product so they do technically owe you something.

Not sure turbo guarantees are part of it, that's up for debate, but this statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way. The nature of a commercial transaction is that the company does indeed owe you a product and services associated with it.

Ofc they did and it delivered. The product I got from them was working according to the spec sheet. But what happens if for some strange reason said product won't clock up to the spec sheet? In my books that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Furthermore I got the product because I wanted it not because they shoved it down my throat. Basically you get what you pay for and taking the boost clocks out of the spec sheet isn't the end of the world.

 

[R-T-B]

Ofc they did and it delivered. The product I got from them was working according to the spec sheet. But what happens if for some strange reason said product won't clock up to the spec sheet? In my books that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Furthermore I got the product because I wanted it not because they shoved it down my throat. Basically you get what you pay for and taking the boost clocks out of the spec sheet isn't the end of the world.

As I sorta said above, I don't really disagree.

Question... how many flat earth people frequent this forum? Feels like it would be an inordinate amount.

We had at least one posting like nuts not too long ago.

I'm sure there are plenty more hiding somewhere.

 

[john_]

While we are at this topic, care to link to an AMD document about Ryzen/Threadripper turbo frequencies table?

You want a table of turbo frequencies for FULLY UNLOCKED PROCESSORS? That's nice