Intel’s Turbo Modes

A last minute detail from Intel yesterday was information on the Turbo modes. As expected, not all of the processors actually run at their rated/base frequency: most will apply a series of turbo modes depending on how many cores are registered as ‘active’. Each core can have its frequency adjusted independently, allowing VMs to take advantage of different workload types and not be hamstrung by occupants on other VMs in the same socket. This becomes important when AVX, AVX2 and AVX-512 are being used at the same time.

Most of the turbo modes are a sliding scale, with the peak turbo used when only one or two cores are active, sliding down to a minimum frequency that may be the ‘base’ frequency or just above it. There’s a lot of information for the parts here, so we’ll break it down into stages.

First up, a look at the Platinum 8180 in the different modes:

It should be worth noting what the base frequency actually is, and some of the nuance in Intel’s wording here. The base frequency is the guaranteed frequency of the chip – Intel sells the chip with the base frequencies as the guarantee, such that when the chip is not idle and not in normal conditions (i.e. when not in thermal power states to reduce temperature) should operate at this frequency or above it. Intel also lists the per-core turbo frequencies as ‘Maximum Core Frequencies’ indicating that the processors could be running lower than listed, depending on power distribution and requirements in other areas of the chip (such as the uncore, or memory controller). It’s a vague set of terms but ultimately the frequency is determined on the fly and can be affected by many factors, but Intel guarantees a certain amount and provides guides as to what it expects the turbo frequencies to be.

As for the Platinum 8180, it keeps its top turbo modes while up to two cores are active, and then drops down. It does this again for another two cores, and a further two cores. From this point, under non-AVX load the CPU is pretty much the same frequency until >20 cores are loaded, but does not decrease that much in all.  For AVX 2.0 and AVX-512, the downward slope of more cores means less frequency continues, with AVX-512 taking a bigger jump down at 13 cores loaded. The final turbo frequency for AVX-512 running on all cores is 2.3 GHz.

Comparing the two 28-core CPUs for which we have turbo information gives this graph. The numbers relate to the number of cores need to be loaded for that frequency.

Both processors are equal to each other for dual core loading, but the separation occurs when more cores are loaded. As we move through to AVX 2.0 and AVX-512, it is clear where the separations are in performance – to get the best for variable core loading, the more expensive processors are required.

Here’s the big table for all the processors on Non-AVX loading:

Despite the 2.0/2.1 GHz base on most of the Platinum series, all the CPUs will turbo up to 3.7-3.8 GHz on low core loading except for the lower power Platinum 8153. For users wanting to strike a good balance between the core count and frequency, the Gold 6154 is probably the place to be: 18 cores that will only ever run at 3.7 GHz with non-AVX loading (3.5-2.7 GHz on AVX-512 depending on core count), and will be $3543 as a list price at 205W. It is perhaps worth noting that this will likely top any of the Core i9 processors planned: at 18-cores and 205W for 3.7 GHz, the Core i9-7980XE which will have 18 cores but run 165W will likely be clocked lower (but also only ~$2000).

Moving onto AVX2.0 and AVX-512:

Xeon Skylake-SP SKUs Intel Expanding the Chipset: 10 GigE & QuickAssist
POST A COMMENT

219 Comments

View All Comments

  • JKflipflop98 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    For years I thought you were just really committed to playing the "dumb AMD fanbot" schtick for laughs. It's infinitely more funny now that I know you've actually been *serious* this entire time. Reply
  • ddriver - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    Whatever helps you feel better about yourself ;) I bet it is funny now, that AT have to carefully devise intel biased benches and lie in its reviews in hopes intel at least saves face. BTW I don't have a single amd CPU running ATM. Reply
  • WinterCharm - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    Uh, what are you smoking? this is a pretty even piece. Reply
  • boozed - Tuesday, July 11, 2017 - link

    You haven't done your job properly unless you've annoyed the fanboys (and perhaps even fangirls) for both sides! Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    Wise words. Indeed :-) Reply
  • Ranger1065 - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    If you are referring to ddriver, I agree, wise words indeed. Reply
  • ddriver - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    Well, that assumption rests on the presumption that the point of reviews is to upsed fanboys.

    I'd say that a "review done right" would include different workload scenarios, there is nothing wrong with having one that will show the benefits of intel's approach to doing server chips, but that should be properly denoted, and should be just one of several database tests and should be accompanied by gigabytes of databases which is what we use in real world scenarios.
    Reply
  • CoachAub - Wednesday, July 12, 2017 - link

    It was mentioned more than once that this review was rushed to make a deadline and that the suite of benchmarks were not everything they wanted to run and without optimizations or even the usual tweaks an end-user would make to their system. So, keep that in mind as you argue over the tests and different scenarios, etc. Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, July 13, 2017 - link

    It doesn't take a lot of time to populate a larger database so that you can make a benchmark that involves an actual real world usage scenario. It wasn't the "rushing" that prompted the choice of database size... Reply
  • mpbello - Friday, July 14, 2017 - link

    If you are rushing, you reduce scope and deliver fewer pieces with high quality instead of insisting on delivering a full set of benchmarks that you are not sure about its quality.
    The article came to a very strong conclusion: Intel is better for database scenarios. Whatever you do, whether you are rushing or not, you cannot state something like that if the benchmarks supporting your conclusion are not well designed.
    So I agree that the design of the DB benchmark was incredibly weak to sustain such an important conclusion that Intel is the best choice for DB applications.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now