Reaching for Turbo: Aligning Perception with AMD’s Frequency Metrics
by Dr. Ian Cutress on September 17, 2019 10:00 AM ESTDo 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.
Testing my audience's knowledge. Is the CPU Turbo Frequency on a desktop processor guaranteed by the manufacturer? Yes or No? [POLL]
— Dr. Ian Cutress (@IanCutress) September 12, 2019
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
View All Comments
Korguz - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
so i guess you are ok with intel marketing their chips to only use the watts they state, but under real usage, they can, specially when overclocked, they can use MUCH more ??Cooe - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
It doesn't say "4.7GHz Turbo" it says "Max 4.7GHz Turbo". Aka "UP TO!". It's not AMD's fault if "Average Joe" literally doesn't know how to read...Oliseo - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Also, if YOU have to write a multi page highly technical article on why AMD is right and all the customers are wrong, then you're just a fanboy who doesn't give a **** about the customer.We get enough of this in the comments with people in the media joining in to make excuses for large multinationals at the expense of the average consumer.
Shame on you!
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Here, these people will escort you to your new home, the asylum... cheers and enjoy you stray jacket...Calabros - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
This the funniest First World Problem I've seen in 2019.regsEx - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
I can't find any reference in CFL documentation that PL1 is for base clocks. It doesn't seem to have any correlation.edzieba - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Sounds like the "Intel Performance Maximizer" is exploring and characterising the frequency-space above the all-core turbo clock. That could be done at the factory to provide faster out-of-the-box performance, but would either introduce chip-to-chip variation is stock (rather than OC) performance, or create even more SKU bins. And people already throw a wobbler over he number of SKUs Intel produce (even though 90% of those are not a consideration unless you order direct from them in $multimillion batches).samboy - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
My biggest concern is for the 3950x.This has the highest Turbo specification of all the processors; which was a good selling point when I first saw the specifications
However, it is becoming clear that the all-core base clock speed specification is more important. Particularly given that the 3900x seems to take the least "advantage" of Turbo out of all the current chips.
Comparing the specifications of 3950x to 3900x we see a 300MHZ drop off on base core speed; in exchange for an extra 100MHZ in boost - which seems somewhat questionable now.
A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value. My untested assumption is that the 300MHZ less in base speed is the more important number and will translate to slower throughput.
I'll wait for the reviews for the 3950x; but I expect that I'll be leaning for the 3900x for the second system I need to build.
oleyska - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
3900X boosts higher than any other ryzen chip out today.I think 3950X will be faster than 3900X, on ryzen amount of cores doesn't matter at all.
Have a ryzen 1700? it isn't at all limited in comparison to a 1600 and on average seems to hit higher frequencies and it's absolutely true for 3000 series, even More so!
ajlueke - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"A 50% increase in cost for an extra 4 cores and likely slower throughput for tasks that use 12 or less cores (which covers almost everything that is run in practice today) this doesn't look like particularly good value."The 3950X will almost certainly be faster than the 3900X in just about every scenario. If you consider the way the two chiplet CPUs are binned, they have one fast chiplet (CCD) and one that is not nearly as fast.
In the 3900X these CCDs are 6 cores each, while they are 8 cores in the 3950X. Which means in an 8 thread workload, the 3950X can do that entire workload on the "better" CCD0, which should have a better frequency/voltage curve. The 3900X will have to dip into 2 cores on CCD1. The 12 core workload is a similar story, the overall frequency/voltage curve will be better on the 3950X because it is boosting more "better" binned cores than the 3900X with the same power envelop.