Do Manufacturers Guarantee Turbo Frequencies?

The question: ‘do manufacturers guarantee turbo frequencies?’ seems like it has an obvious answer to a lot of people. I performed a poll on my private twitter, and the voting results (700+) were astonishing.

31% of people said yes, 69% of people said no.

The correct answer is No, Turbo is never guaranteed.

To clarify, we need to define guarantee:

"A formal assurance that certain conditions will be fulfilled - if pertaining to a product, then that product will be repaired or replaced if not the specified quality."

This means that under a guarantee, the manufacturer would be prepared to repair or replace the product if it did not meet that guarantee. By that definition, Turbo is in no way under the guarantee from the manufacturer and does not fall under warranty.

Both AMD and Intel guarantee four things with their hardware: core counts, base frequency, peak power consumption at that base frequency (in essence, the TDP, even though strictly speaking TDP isn’t a measure of power consumption, but it is approximate), and the length of time those other items are guaranteed to work (usually three years in most locales). If you buy a 6 core CPU and only four cores work, you can get it replaced. If that six core CPU does not hit the base frequency under standard operations (standard is defined be Intel and AMD here, usually with a stock cooler, new paste, a clean chassis with active airflow of a minimum rate, and a given ambient temperature), then you can get it replaced.

Turbo, in this instance, is aspirational. We typically talk about things like ‘a 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’, when technically we should be stating ‘up to 4.4 GHz Turbo frequency’. The ‘up to’ part is just as important as the rest, and the press (me included) is guilty of not mentioning the fact more often. Both Intel and AMD state that their processors under normal conditions should hit the turbo frequency, and both companies actively promote frequency enhancing tools such as aggressive power modes or better turbo profiles, but in no way is any of this actually guaranteed.

Yes, it does kind of suck (that’s the technical term). Both companies market their turbo frequencies loudly, proudly, and sometimes erroneously. Saying something is the ‘first X GHz’ processor only really means something if you can actually get into a position where that frequency is guaranteed. Unscrupulous retailers even put the turbo frequency as the highlight in their marketing material. Trying to explain to the casual user that this turbo frequency, this value that’s plastered everywhere, isn’t actually covered by the warranty, isn’t a good way to encourage them to get a processor.

A Short Detour on Mobile CPUs AMD’s Turbo Issue (Abridged)
Comments Locked

144 Comments

View All Comments

  • MDD1963 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    AMD's four visits totaling little 1/16th of a second each of a single core at advertised boost clocks within a 45 - 100 secnd period are most impressive! :)
  • realHolt - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    Seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LesYlfhv3o
  • twtech - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    If I buy a processor that's advertised as being able to reach a certain clockspeed, I expect the individual example of that product to be able to reach that speed - not that there are some other units marketed under the same name that may be able to. Better to under-advertise than over-advertise.
  • Korguz - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link

    twtech and how do you feel about a cpu being advertised as using X amount of power, but using much more then that ?
  • eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link

    It is not ADVERTISED as a 4.4GHz CPU either... you just made the assumption that it was!
  • Techie2 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    IMNHO it's much nonsense over nothing. No problem with CPU turbo mode IME. Yes there was a 25 MHz drop with the first chipset update to fix overly sensitive load sensing that kept some CPUs at max vcore but other than that no issues for me and no malice or fraud by AMD.

    FYI - AMD settled the bogus CPU core count lawsuit as it was cheaper to settle a frivolous lawsuit than fight it in U.S. courts where Jackpot Justice prevails by criminals. Pour a cup of coffee on your crotch in a moving vehicle and become an instant millionaire. It's the American way...
  • zodiacfml - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    Never bothered to read on this issue, surprising Andntech did. I guess its quiet right now in the tech world. This topic is of little value considering that even Intel's turbo boost speeds are not so easy to predict unless you have an application locked to a certain number of threads and CPU utilization.
  • PProchnow - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link

    Now like if you think Intel I want 5.5Ghz locked in low on 12 cores!!!!

    I got a 4.4Ghz locked SANDRA Graphics Handling Benchie that convinced me the 3900X R A W K Z !
  • PProchnow - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link


    Really, i will KEEP the X470 if this is the best the whole CHANNEL consortium can show me. No huge upside fo buy into.

    BTW I have been seeing the Turbo Peaks you got since i dropped the 3900X in the Friday after the Sunday release....AMD direct sale on Sunday Morning. I seem them in CPUZ HWMON max history. That sim-ly grabs the high number for you no B.S.
  • Peter2k - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link

    The only important difference might be a better VRM solution, which has been improved generally speaking on x570 compared to older generations.

    But if you bought the right board then it's not an issue (but then you would have to know what to look for)
    And even then, it really only matters once you push past 8 cores and obviously put a high load on the chip

    Btw, not needing to buy a new board is a good thing

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now