FX Turbo Core Technology Bumps Frequency by 1.00 GHz

[btarunr]

With Intel's introduction of Turbo Boost technology, a new feature was introduced to the industry, where a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads. AMD quickly followed with its own similar feature, called Turbo Core, with Phenom II X6. With the company's upcoming high-end client FX-series processors, that technology is being given an update. On the FX-series processors, the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom.

A company slide reveals that FX-series processors can run all cores at nominal speeds (advertised speeds), all cores at a bumped "Turbo" state, or with half the number of cores running at max turbo speeds with up to 1.00 GHz (5.0x BClk multiplier) increase in clock speeds, with the other half the number of cores in C6 state, completely shut off. Turbo Core ensures increased performance in applications that are designed to work with lesser number of cores, most games come in this category.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Zubasa]

Where are my chips AMD?

 

[AphexDreamer]

This seems like something they could have done a while back?

I suppose now that its automated that's a bit nice.

 

[Zubasa]

This seems like something they could have done a while back?

I suppose now that its automated that's a bit nice.

What this is is that Turbo core now works exactly like Intel's Turbo Boost.

 

[MikeMurphy]

I'm hoping these aggressive turbo speeds reflect additional overclocking headroom!

Please and thanks

 

[Wyverex]

What this is is that Turbo core now works exactly like Intel's Turbo Boost.

No, not really.
Intel's Turbo Boost can't OC all the cores at the same time, this can.

I'm hoping these aggressive turbo speeds reflect additional overclocking headroom!

Please and thanks

From your mouth to the ears of gods of hardware

 

[LifeOnMars]

No, not really.
Intel's Turbo Boost can't OC all the cores at the same time, this can.

From your mouth to the ears of gods of hardware

Are you sure about that

 

[Crap Daddy]

Intel's turbo on SB can overclock all cores albeit with only 100MHz.

 

[buggalugs]

I'm guessing these turbo speeds will only be possible with a default CPU speed.

Thats fine by me. Running your CPU at 100% all the time with high voltage is dead......energy efficiency and dynamic overclocking is the future!!

 

[redzo]

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!
No manufacturer is ever going to sell a product guaranteed to function properly beyond its specifications! That's because reliable operation cannot be accomplished under this scenario.

You've started with:
"a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads". That's true. It means overclocking.

Then you've contradicted yourself with:
"the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom".
"within the processor's TDP headroom", this IS NOT overclocking.

The slide is also misleading because it fails to specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom for the "MAX turbo" state, as it doesn't specify that also for the other two states. I believe that's from where you've got the entire article wrong. The slide(proof) is just unprofessional.

You should edit this article.

 

[Fatal]

Where are my chips AMD?

Me too they need to hurry the hell up! Thanks for the info btarunr

 

[Nesters]

I think it's pretty good if you can get 8-core FX @ 3.2ghz stock and use all 8 cores if you need them or use 4 cores @ 4.2ghz for games and stuff like that without manual OC.
Should raise the performance bar for 'normal' PC users who don't OC. Intel already does that but it's good to see it from AMD too, and don't forget about extra 4 cores.

 

[bucketface]

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!
No manufacturer is ever going to sell a product guaranteed to function properly beyond its specifications! That's because reliable operation cannot be accomplished under this scenario.

You've started with:
"a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads". That's true. It means overclocking.

Then you've contradicted yourself with:
"the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom".
"within the processor's TDP headroom", this IS NOT overclocking.

The slide is also misleading because it fails to specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom for the "MAX turbo" state, as it doesn't specify that also for the other two states. I believe that's from where you've got the entire article wrong. The slide(proof) is just unprofessional.

You should edit this article.

overclocking is still technically withing tdp, suicide runs on the other hand go beyond.. at least thats how i understand it.

 

[THANATOS]

Crap Daddy: 100Mhz compared to 1Ghz makes for a big difference. I am comparing SB 2600K and BD 4-modul(8 thread), both of them have the same number of threads so while SB2600K gets just a small 100Mhz jump the AMD model will get a boost of 1Ghz while still using the same number of threads, which is 4 in this case.

P.S. I am not sure if turbo in SB 2600K works if HT is in use? on the other hand AMD still gives +500Mhz boost when using all 8 threads.

 

[Imsochobo]

Crap Daddy: 100Mhz compared to 1Ghz makes for a big difference. I am comparing SB 2600K and BD 4-modul(8 thread), both of them have the same number of threads so while SB2600K gets just a small 100Mhz jump the AMD model will get a boost of 1Ghz while still using the same number of threads, which is 4 in this case.

P.S. I am not sure if turbo in SB 2600K works if HT is in use? on the other hand AMD still gives +500Mhz boost when using all 8 threads.

well its pretty much like this but amd have taken it one step further.
and C6 turning off cores alltogether is pretty impressive.

 

[THANATOS]

ImsochoboI think they did a really great job this time.

 

[_JP_]

Where are my chips AMD?

Agreed. Stop teasing damn it!

 

[b82rez]

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!
No manufacturer is ever going to sell a product guaranteed to function properly beyond its specifications! That's because reliable operation cannot be accomplished under this scenario.

You've started with:
"a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads". That's true. It means overclocking.

Then you've contradicted yourself with:
"the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom".
"within the processor's TDP headroom", this IS NOT overclocking.

The slide is also misleading because it fails to specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom for the "MAX turbo" state, as it doesn't specify that also for the other two states. I believe that's from where you've got the entire article wrong. The slide(proof) is just unprofessional.

You should edit this article.

Subbing just to see Btarunr's ownage reply.

 

[Bo$$]

it is displaying 16 cores hint hint

 

[Zubasa]

Crap Daddy: 100Mhz compared to 1Ghz makes for a big difference. I am comparing SB 2600K and BD 4-modul(8 thread), both of them have the same number of threads so while SB2600K gets just a small 100Mhz jump the AMD model will get a boost of 1Ghz while still using the same number of threads, which is 4 in this case.

P.S. I am not sure if turbo in SB 2600K works if HT is in use? on the other hand AMD still gives +500Mhz boost when using all 8 threads.

Bumping all the cores up 1Ghz will simply exceed the TDP of the chip, and so will 500Mhz.
With all 8-cores active it can bump up by maybe 1-multi which is 200Mhz at most.

Remember that this chip must be absolutely stable under AMD's stock cooling, and that is what the TDP is all about.
Many of these chips are going into factory pre-builds which runs on minimal cooling.

 

[Play3r]

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!
No manufacturer is ever going to sell a product guaranteed to function properly beyond its specifications! That's because reliable operation cannot be accomplished under this scenario.

You've started with:
"a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads". That's true. It means overclocking.

Then you've contradicted yourself with:
"the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom".
"within the processor's TDP headroom", this IS NOT overclocking.

The slide is also misleading because it fails to specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom for the "MAX turbo" state, as it doesn't specify that also for the other two states. I believe that's from where you've got the entire article wrong. The slide(proof) is just unprofessional.

You should edit this article.

It is overclocking by the fact that it shuts off half of the cores and boosts the other half so obviously its not going to be over the TDP of the whole processor. the cores by the selves are going over the individual spec of each core but not over the spec over the entire processor

"all cores at a bumped "Turbo" state, or with half the number of cores running at max turbo speeds with up to 1.00 GHz (5.0x BClk multiplier) increase in clock speeds, with the other half the number of cores in C6 state, completely shut off"

 

[redzo]

Subbing just to see Btarunr's ownage reply.

No. The fist half of the article is completely unprofessional and wrong.

With Intel's introduction of Turbo Boost technology, a new feature was introduced to the industry, where a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads.
[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-06-14/74a_thm.jpg[/URL]

Source: DonanimHaber

Intel Turbo Boost is not an overclocking feature. AMD Turbo Core is not an overclocking feature. Yet that's what this quote says. As long as you do not exceed the manufacturer's specified TDP, you do not overclock. A CPU does not overclock by itself and there is no feature like this and there will never be one. Is it that hard to understand?
I'm really not that type of an individual. I do not require a special type of attention. I hope that you've got the point of my first quote. ^2

 

[gumpty]

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!
No manufacturer is ever going to sell a product guaranteed to function properly beyond its specifications! That's because reliable operation cannot be accomplished under this scenario.

You've started with:
"a processor overclocks itself in short bursts to handle increased CPU loads". That's true. It means overclocking.

Then you've contradicted yourself with:
"the technology is designed to bump clock speeds by as much as 1.00 GHz over the processor's advertised clock speed, within the processor's TDP headroom".
"within the processor's TDP headroom", this IS NOT overclocking.

The slide is also misleading because it fails to specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom for the "MAX turbo" state, as it doesn't specify that also for the other two states. I believe that's from where you've got the entire article wrong. The slide(proof) is just unprofessional.

You should edit this article.

No. The fist half of the article is completely unprofessional and wrong.

Intel Turbo Boost is not an overclocking feature. AMD Turbo Core is not an overclocking feature. Yet that's what this quote says. As long as you do not exceed the manufacturer's specified TDP, you do not overclock. A CPU does not overclock by itself and there is no feature like this and there will never be one. Is it that hard to understand?
I'm really not that type of an individual. I do not require a special type of attention. I hope that you've got the point of my first quote. ^2

Frequency bump = overclock; regardless of whether it stays within the TDP or not. You don't get to define what an overclock is and isn't.

Apart from that. Can't wait till these hit the reviewer's desks.

 

[cheesy999]

Frequency bump = overclock; regardless of whether it stays within the TDP or not. You don't get to define what an overclock is and isn't.

an overclock is operating a part outside the manufacturer rated frequency, if the manufacture is making it do these frequency its not an overclock, just an upclock

Overclocking is the process of running a computer component at a higher clock rate (more clock cycles per second) than it was designed for or was specified by the manufacturer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking

its not running it at a higher clock speed then it was designed or specified for as the manufacture designed and specified these to go up to 1ghz higher on demand

its less of an overclock, more just 'speed-step' and 'cool and quiet' in reverse (clock speed and voltage increase instead of decrease)

AS you said GUMPTY, we don't get to define a word, but we don't need to, as its already been done

 

[gumpty]

an overclock is operating a part outside the manufacturer rated frequency, if the manufacture is making it do these frequency its not an overclock, just an upclock



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking

its not running it at a higher clock speed then it was designed or specified for as the manufacture designed and specified these to go up to 1ghz higher on demand

its less of an overclock, more just 'speed-step' and 'cool and quiet' in reverse (clock speed and voltage increase instead of decrease)

AS you said GUMPTY, we don't get to define a word, but we don't need to, as its already been done

Yeah, quite right. But surely TDP is irrelevant to the bounds of a theoretical overclock, which I thought was what Redzo was insinuating.