FX Turbo Core Technology Bumps Frequency by 1.00 GHz

[Bo$$]

well the definition of overclocking came about before this turbo boost, so it is opinion whether it is or not, i agree with GUMPTY, freq bump = overclocking

for instance if i set all the cores at the 'turbo boost' frequency 24/7 does that still count as overclocking, yes! because the stock speed is not what the manufacturer intended even though it does this speed by itself!

 

[inferKNOX]

it is displaying 16 cores hint hint

I also noticed that there are 16 bars and wonder what it means, whether is brings the credibility into question or otherwise.

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!!

@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 goes over the default clock, over-clock... seems pretty straight forward to me.
I would think that if the term overclocking was directed at the voltage/power it would be over-volt or over-power/watt, so your argument is trying to cling onto a fringe element of the definition of overclocking and put an excessive spotlight on it, IMHO.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

If the only constraint is thermal output and power supply line, it would be nerfing a high power unit to fit a pre-determined power envelop instead of boosting a lower power unit. I agree it's not overclock if it's designed to run that way.

 

[btarunr]

@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.

It is within its specifications for some FX processor models to bump clock speeds of some cores by up to 5.0x BClk.

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.

Breaking news: the processor can overclock certain cores at the expense of other cores being sent into low-power state, and stay within the thermal envelope.

Wait...it's been that way since Core i7 920...since 2008.

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.

It need not specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom, because it remains constant between all states. Max turbo doesn't violate it, either. It just runs some of the cores at higher clock speeds at the expense of other cores being almost gated.

@btarunr, this article is misleading and wrong!

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

It is within its specifications for some FX processor models to bump clock speeds of some cores by up to 5.0x BClk.



Breaking news: the processor can overclock certain cores at the expense of other cores being sent into low-power state, and stay within the thermal envelope.

Wait...it's been that way since Core i7 920...since 2008.



It need not specify the manufacturer's TDP headroom, because it remains constant between all states. Max turbo doesn't violate it, either. It just runs some of the cores at higher clock speeds at the expense of other cores being almost gated.



No.

btarunr....I wouldn't bother....

 

[bucketface]

@btarunr
redzo is debating the use of the word overclock which he/she insists is only when you exceed the tdp of the processor, im not sure what you'd use instead to decribe whats happening, clock boosts, turbo clocks...
personally does it really matter. the cpu now dynamically clocks up as well as down. it overclocks and downclocks.. sounds right to me.

 

[btarunr]

@btarunr
redzo is debating the use of the word overclock which he/she insists is only when you exceed the tdp of the processor, im not sure what you'd use instead to decribe whats happening, clock boosts, turbo clocks...
personally does it really matter. the cpu now dynamically clocks up as well as down. it overclocks and downclocks.. sounds right to me.

Overclocking of any form doesn't necessarily violate the manufacturer's prescribed TDP. In this context, the processor is setting speeds higher than its default (advertised, nominal) clock speeds, and it's kosher to use the word 'overclock' to describe what's going on.

 

[wolf]

this is a formidable mhz increase for sure, great to see AMD with the headroom to bump up the speed in such increments.

Intel will be very quick to follow suit IMO. remember SB chips are at a TDP of only 95w, they could have some insanely agressive turbo boost speeds if they released 125w chips. and I beleive still a fair amount more headroom even at 95w.

the war is on and this round is gunna be awesome people... benches already!!!

 

[HTC]

I have a few questions:

1 - If the CPU OCs itself within the TDP, how does one manually OC: raise the TDP in BIOS or something?

2 - Can the reverse of 1 happen too (reduce the TDP, instead of increasing it)?

3 - If one OCs the CPU, can the turbo still work (yes but with smaller boost / not @ all)?


That all, for now.

 

[btarunr]

I have a few questions:

1 - If the CPU OCs itself within the TDP, how does one manually OC: raise the TDP in BIOS or something?

2 - Can the reverse of 1 happen too (reduce the TDP, instead of increasing it)?

3 - If one OCs the CPU, can the turbo still work (yes but with smaller boost / not @ all)?


That all, for now.

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

 

[kirtar]

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/01/31/bulldozer-goes-to-11/

I know that post is about BD, but the same concepts still apply. Stock clocks are set by considering the worst possible scenario so that you're not overrating your products. Turbo is simply allowing you to tap up to the TDP.

 

[Thatguy]

AMD is really getting alot of interest with these little snipet releases of info. I must say, the intel trolls are strong lately.lets just hope that amd isn't a cock tease.

 

[aameghoo]

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

upclock and overclock as I see it are two words with the same meaning, just like how cool n quiet downclocks to save energy and lower temps by lowering the clock speed, it's considered downclocking although it's specified by what ever manufacturer, so why would the same not apply to overclocking? If the manufacturer is stating a clock speed of x and there's a turbo function that allows you to go >x isnt that going over such clock speed thus an over-clock just my $0.02

 

[meran]

be prepared for 4ghz + wars

 

[Thatguy]

be prepared for 4ghz + wars

I think AMD though behind on process likely has just the right acrhitecture to fight that fight. Clock speed is process and design, not just process. I do like the fact the AMD went and designed a entirely new architecture while intel just rehashed the p3 into the new cores.

 

[suraswami]

Where are my chips AMD?

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

They are still baking and frying in the Lays factory

Must have one of these, but wait where is the damn money!

 

[Hayder_Master]

WTF, is this intel black addition cpu?

 

[HTC]

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

I know what TDP is: that's not what i asked.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

WTF, is this intel black addition cpu?

Would that be something like this?

 

[xBruce88x]

@redzo

i would say TDP has nothing to do with overclocking... but that'd be wrong so i'll say that not going over the TDP doesn't mean you're not going over the default clock speed of a cpu core/s. Yes is a lot of cases when you overclock all the cores of a cpu at the same time you're probably going to go past the TDP. all that really means though is that you need a bigger cooling system for the cpu and double check that your PSU can handle it. TDP isn't something set in stone either, since even at stock speeds the cpu could use more but often doesn't. I guess you could say its more or less a guideline for the cpu's power usage and cooling requirements when running at stock speeds. with this tech from AMD it temporarily boosts clock speeds by *up to* 1Ghz depending on the work load. It shuts off half the cores when the first half are clocked at 1ghz over their stock speed. in this case the first set of cores are overclocked by 1ghz while the others are turned off since they're probably not being used by the app that's putting the heavy load on the first set anyway (otherwise that app would have distributed its load evenly to the other cores and there would be no need to overclock). since you're only powering, lets say 2 of 4 cores, at 4ghz vs 4 at 3ghz, your actually going to be below TDP while still overclocking 2 cores. think about it. which would use more power? 4 cores at 3ghz, or 2 cores at 4ghz?

or lets simplify that to something easier to understand. you have a large room with a light fixture that has 4 sockets and a 4way switch per socket (high, med, low, off), 2 on each side, and can handle 425watts. you put 4 3-way bulbs in there to light the whole room. well you decide to run them at 100watt(lets call this default clock) for every-day use giving sufficient lighting and yet use not as much power if they were at 150watt b/c the fixture is wired to handle no more than 425w(lets call this TDP). well you decide to do some work that requires a lot of light but you're only going to be in one-half of the room. so you decide to unscrew 2 of the 4 3-way bulbs (lets say they're in C6) and set the other 2 at 150watts(overclock). you have brigher light for the project you're working on in that half of the room (or more processing power for a task that can only use 2 cores) and you are only using 300w of the 425w TDP.

hope this helps... i'm sure there's a better way to explain it... but that's the best analogy i could think of (was going to use car engines but i figured bulbs would be easier to understand)

 

[Thatguy]

Would that be something like this?

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/Damn_Smooth/IMG_20110501_120828.jpg

I gotta admit, that label is hilarious !

 

[Heavy_MG]

Would that be something like this?

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/Damn_Smooth/IMG_20110501_120828.jpg

Huh?

I think AMD though behind on process likely has just the right acrhitecture to fight that fight. Clock speed is process and design, not just process. I do like the fact the AMD went and designed a entirely new architecture while intel just rehashed the p3 into the new cores.

QFT.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Huh?

Took me 4 times of reading it to figure it out lmao, keep looking

 

[Heavy_MG]

Took me 4 times of reading it to figure it out lmao, keep looking

Hahahahaha,found it.

I'm gonna assume that spec sheet is from Bestbuy.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

I think AMD though behind on process likely has just the right acrhitecture to fight that fight. Clock speed is process and design, not just process. I do like the fact the AMD went and designed a entirely new architecture while intel just rehashed the p3 into the new cores.

So is Netburst.