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
Kangal - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Yeah a Three Scenario figures sound best. It's easiest for consumers to understand. They should apply it for their GPUs and CPUs, and for all products ranging from Mobile to Server.Example:
Base Clock --- Burst Clock -- Boost Clock
3GHz 8 core - 5GHz 1 core - 4GHz 8 core
90W TDP ----- 120W TDP --- 150W TDP
teamet - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Whatever.. It's fine no matter what. It's just .. I mean .. why couldn't they just write 4.35 GHz on the box or whatever. The performance is there. No need to try and over-exaggerate clock.It feels like a battle between engineers and marketing, and marketing got to write the clock on the box in the end.
mczak - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
IMHO AMD made a mistake anyway trying to extract every little bit of performance. Leave those last 3% to the overclockers - they aren't really relevant but come at the expense of quite a lot of efficiency.franzeal - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
So you think it's better they create an inferior product for the masses, so that a few can feel like they got something extra/free? They did good.mikato - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Agree. This is a step forward as long as any risks are minimal. Why leave some performance only for overclockers if you don't have to?Arnulf - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
This is an industry-wide thing (have a look at the mobile SoCs, e. g. Qualcomm, ...). They love rounding their frequency figures up, reality be damned!DroidTomTom - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Reminds me of the days of the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton 1.833 GHz Socket A CPU's. They were faster IPC than Intel but people only paid attention to frequency which was misleading. AMD was trying to put the focus on overall performance per dollar.Dribble - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
The graphs on pages 2 and 3 tell you all you need to know. AMD just run there cpu's far to close to the limit and give you numbers that are higher then what is understood by boost (it would be like Intel advertising boost as 5.2 not 4.6).It's deceptive really as the number does not mean the same thing as Intel's number. I am sure I'll get 20 replies saying how this is fine, but if it were Intel doing this then I bet the same people would be roasting Intel for this sort of miss-information.
Karmena - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
first, AMD does not call it Turbo, like Intel does. It is Boost. The problem is you assuming that those are the same. Same as in legal speak, you have to go and look up the definition of what is claimed. Or keep every company accountable. As most of the time they add that trademark thingy, and in the end that just means that the company gets to set up the definition of what it is. SMT vs HT.Spunjji - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I can't believe anyone would make it all the way through such an informative article like this and then still post such an ignorant comment. The only reasonable conclusion is that you did not take the time to read it properly, because everything you said was discussed at length.