If you have been keeping up to date with any of the AnandTech motherboard reviews lately, there has been one topic that has been hot on my lips, and it is called ‘MultiCore Enhancement’.  As an exercise in explanation and opinion, we would like to know your thoughts on this, and how it would affect you as a user.

To start, let me describe what we are talking about.  On the latest line of Intel CPUs, we have multiple cores all willing to provide computational throughput.  The CPU itself has a listed stock speed, and a thermal window to ensure stable operation.  At the stock speed, the CPU does not hit the thermal window, so Intel assign higher speeds depending on how much computational power is needed, and this is adjusted to fit inside the power requirements.  Thus when a user requires only one CPU core, the CPU can be allocated the maximum turbo speed – when more cores are requested, the speed of the CPU drops until all cores are in use.  This is what Intel designates the ‘Turbo Boost’ for the CPU.

In the case of the latest Ivy Bridge CPU, the i7-3770K, this CPU has a nominal speed of 3.5 GHz.  However, the turbo boost is set such that in single threaded mode, the CPU can run at 3.9 GHz by adjusting the multiplier to 39x.  As more cores are loaded, the CPU reduces the multiplier down, until all four cores are in use and the processor is running at 3.7 GHz, still 200 MHz above the rated speed on the box.  This also applies to other processors:

CPU Turbo Bins
  i7-3770K
(4C / 8T)
i7-3570K
(4C / 4T)
i7-2600K
(4C / 8T)
i7-3960X
(6C / 12T)
i7-3820
(4C / 8T)
Rated Speed 3.5 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.3 GHz 3.6 GHz
1 Core 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.9 GHz 3.9 GHz
2 Core 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz
3 Core 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
4 Core 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
5 Core - - - 3.7 GHz -
6 Core - - - 3.6 GHz -

However this technology is not defined by the processor itself.  The act of telling the processor to run at a certain speed is set by the motherboard, not the processor.  So as part of the deal with Intel, motherboard manufacturers’ code in the BIOS the algorithm to make the CPU switch speeds as required.  This algorithm can be aggressive, such that turbo boosts are held for a short time when CPU loading goes from low to high, or instant when CPU power is needed or not needed.  This algorithm and switching speed can determine how well a motherboard performs in CPU benchmarks.

This is all well and good when every manufacturer adheres to this specification.  But a new ‘feature’ has made its way onto our motherboards.  Since X79, ASUS has been implementing a feature they call ‘MultiCore Enhancement’ whenever XMP has been set.  Gigabyte has implemented this since their Z77 suite but as of yet leave it un-named, and ASRock are going to start using ‘MultiCore Acceleration’ with their Z77 OC Formula.  EVGA also has something in the pipeline for their Z77 boards.  This feature, put simply, gives the CPU some extra speed.

With these motherboards, usually when XMP is enabled, the CPU is told to use the top turbo boost setting under all loads.  That means a CPU like the i7-3770K has only two speeds – 3.9 GHz while under CPU load, and 1.2 GHz at idle.  For motherboards that implement this feature, they get a significant boost in their CPU benchmark scores.  As a result, the user who runs their processor at stock also gets up to 300 MHz more speed during multithreaded loading.

Technically, this is an overclock.  Typically we are told that overclocking a system is liable to void the warranty on both the processor and the motherboard.  With the case of the processor, typically what Intel put on the shelves is a safe speed – they are not pushing any competition to the limits, so these processors have breathing room and this ‘overclock’ should not harm longevity.  Nevertheless, Intel is usually very willing to replace processors (if I extrapolate the stories of returns I have heard).  With motherboards, they are designed to hold the top turbo bin at single core loads, so full threaded load should not be much of an issue.  Given that it is the motherboard manufacturers themselves that apply this, it would be reasonable that RMAs would be honored.

There has been a precedent with this in the past – when Turbo Boost was not part of the processor paradigm, motherboard manufacturers used to play around with the CPU FSB speed before it was passed through the multiplier.  So instead of 100.0 MHz on the FSB, we used to get 100.3 MHz, 100.8 MHz, 101.3 MHz, and even a case of 102.1 MHz I believe.  So essentially, a free 2.1% overclock if you ran the processor at stock speeds.

Given all this, I recently tested one motherboard that pushed the boundaries beyond the ‘normal’ MultiCore Enhancement.  The Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3, by default, gave the i7-3770K a 4.0 GHz turbo mode at any speed.  As a result, it took top spot in all our benchmark settings.  The G1.Sniper 3 is a high end product, so producing the jump was not much extra work for the product itself.  However, it does open up a variety of questions.

- How many users run processors (K or non-K) at stock?
- How many will notice the difference in speed?
- Will they worry that technically it is an overclock?
- Will a manufacturer go that one step further, to 4.1 GHz, or 4.2 GHz?  What is a safe limit?

Here are the results from one of my benchmark tests.  Here is 3DPM, a memory agnostic benchmark, using the multi-threaded version:

3D Particle Movement - MultiThreaded

Here we see that the boards with MCE all come top.  More cores means more points, and more MHz is king.  Boards without MCE have to have an aggressive turbo switching algorithm to stay close, or fall behind up to 10% away from those without MCE.

I would like to cite some scenarios involving individuals and their computers in order to draw some conclusions.

  • Person 1 uses his machine for gaming.  While an active gamer, his budget is low and does not know how to adjust the BIOS, but his system plays his games well enough not to overclock.
  • Person 2 is an enthusiast with a high budget.  His system uses the best components, and he is always striving for top speed through overclocking.
  • Person 3 uses their pre-built machine for work and email, sometimes watching movies or video websites.  They have no need for overclocking.
  • Person 4 has a low power HTPC, and is focused on keeping his footprint green.  They buy a low powered CPU, and use it to watch videos.  The system is not underclocked, but when under load, the CPU will implement the full turbo mode.

Deductive reasoning tells us that Persons 1 + 3 will benefit slightly from MultiCore Enhancement, however the gamer moreso than the worker.  Person 2 overclocks, and thus MCE does not affect them.  Person 4 is more like a victim of MCE – without going into the BIOS they are unnecessarily using more energy than needs be.

Several companies have approached me and ask why I test motherboards with MCE enabled.  My response is that I test the ‘out of the box’ performance for the majority of users, such as Person 1, or system builders making machines for Person 3.  If I pre-overclocked the normal ATX boards, while that would help Person 2 in their decision, I would have to do it as well for Person 4 in order to keep the comparisons between ATX and mITX relevant.  Keeping everything at default on the latest BIOS is a steady baseline between these scenarios – if a motherboard manufacturer wants to be aggressive and enable MCE (or MCE-plus), then that is up to them.  But as a result of MCE, some companies who have not enabled it are being left behind in terms of stock CPU performance.

The point of this pipeline post is to ask our readers what they think of MultiCore Enhancement.  Do you like it?  Does it matter to you?  Should it become the standard, or should companies offer different SKUs with and without MCE?  If two motherboards from different companies are all equal on price and features but differ by MCE, would you go for MCE?  Would you worry about longevity?  Please let us know in the comments.

POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • asgallant - Friday, August 31, 2012 - link

    When I look at a motherboard review, I want to see an apples to apples comparison - what does the motherboard bring to the table in terms of performance. Bumping clock speeds is "cheating" in a way, because it's the CPU bringing the extra performance, not some aspect of the motherboard.

    It's good to know that the feature is there, and what it does with performance, but I need to see the benchmarks with it disabled to make a fully-informed purchase decision.
    Reply
  • Urbanos - Friday, August 31, 2012 - link

    I use my pc as all 4 of your people scenarios, I use overclocking profiles for heavy games and also stock or undervolt profiles for htpc use when watching movies connected to my 50" tv.
    If the mce option has any affect on system stability, in any of these cases, personally its not worth it.
    Longevity isn't much of a concern of mine, and the very small increment of extra power used by mce isn't a bother either. But stability is. If I have to factor potential stability issues because of mce in any scenario, its not worth implementing as a default enabled feature.

    It reminds me of the motherboard factory overclock auto features that many gaming boards put in. They don't tune the system well and their standard settings are always merely novice mediocre attempts at free mhz.
    Let me choose, leave it as a default option that can be easily disabled.
    Reply
  • snadge - Saturday, September 01, 2012 - link

    - this isnt really a 'new' feature - we've been able to do this since 2500K, simply set max Turbo speed across each core to 4Ghz and that's it!! - it will idle at 1.6Ghz and all 4 cores will boost up to 4Ghz when in use...no need to set voltages or anything?? - or you can disable TURBO mode altogether and set the Multiplier to x40 and results will be exactly the same = Idle at 1.6Mhz and 4Ghz speed across all cores when in use.

    we all know that Sandy-Bridge + Ivy-Bridge are good on Air up to x44 - x46 multiplier, so no harm in hitting x40 or x41 - I would say x42 would probably be the safety limit that manufacturers dare to venture beyond.

    - this too me is just another way of doing it and pretty much pointless, swapping one BIOS option for another.
    Reply
  • Archangel35757 - Tuesday, September 04, 2012 - link

    I'm new to over-clocking... and am somewhat confused-- perhaps someone can clear-up my ignorance... I have an i7-3930K cpu and am about to buy a motherboard for a new 3D modeling/animation "workstation" plus some gaming... and I stumbled upon this post on MCE. I was planning on overclocking the CPU and was going to get the ASRock Extreme9 motherboard... but I see it does not have the MCE feature. So I presumed when you overclocked the cpu manually in the BIOS that all cores worked at that overclock setting... is my thinking incorrect- and you need MCE to make all cores work at the overclock speed? or does manually overclocking in the BIOS make the MCE a moot feature? Thanks for the replies. Reply
  • Brainling - Tuesday, September 04, 2012 - link

    No, you're first thought was correct. You can do everything MCE does yourself, provided the BIOS you are using has turbo profile settings. MCE is just a nice "stock" feature for people (like me) who don't have the time and energy to sit and hand set and test turbo profiles. Reply
  • Brainling - Tuesday, September 04, 2012 - link

    In this new wonderful world of changing power envelopes, and headroom on top of headroom in our CPU's, I think it's an important feature to talk about. I am one of the "used to overclock" crew, but now run my system completely stock....so this is a feature I would actually make use of. Knowing that I can buy one board and get 10% theoretical performance because it has this feature would be a selling point to me.

    I understand that for the overclocking crew it's a pointless feature, and they probably don't care either way...but I like that you are mentioning it, and I don't think it can be ignored.
    Reply
  • EJ257 - Thursday, September 06, 2012 - link

    So is this like the CPU Intelligent Accelerator on the Gigabyte boards? You could set it to 5 different speed zones in the BIOS and depending on the load on the system it will either go all the way down to 1.6GHz, give you stock speed 2.4GHz (Q6600) or go up to 2.8-2.9GHz when it "turbos". All this by change the FSB and multiplier (which varies between 6x or 9x). Keep in mind these speed boost are applied across all cores since the Q6600 didn't have the fancy turbo boost of the later i series. Reply
  • ClagMaster - Monday, September 10, 2012 - link

    The problem with Multi-Core Enhancement is not many people (Persons 3 and 4) would not understand what this is. BIOS is often very terse describing its features and this needs to change. Reply
  • Casper42 - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link

    I am a combination of 1 and 3
    I know what most of the stuff in my BIOS does but I choose not to touch most of it because I don't have a lot of experience with overclocking.

    The exception is on my new 3770K machine I bought 2133 rated memory and the Asus BIOS didn't seem to have a way to simply select from the XMP modes so I went in and forced the Memory to 2133 with the right settings.

    So how do I check if my board has this or uses it?
    I have no problem turning this on since I am either doing light web surfing that barely taxes the machine, but then I flip over to either Gaming or dual boot into ESXi as a Home Lab for my work, both of which I am sure would love the extra horsepower.

    P8Z77-V Pro
    3770K
    4 x 8GB 2133 Ripjaws Z
    Reply
  • Chris87 - Thursday, October 25, 2012 - link

    Which motherboards support this feature? I´m looking for cheap MB. I have i7 3770 (non-K) so i woul like to run it on 4.3GHz on all cores at load. I don´t know if cheapest gigabyte or asus z77 MBs support it... Thanks Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now