Editorial On Intel's Decision to no Longer Disclose All-core Turbo

[EarthDog]

Is it related with throttling issue ?

No.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

Just looks like Intel's renewed "competition" with AMD led to Intel adopting a very Intel-like mindset about speed listing. I keep hearing how AMD leads the way and it would appear that's true.

Thanks AMD! AMD innovation once again influences Intel, guys!

 

[cyneater]

intel we are now losing shitting our selfs so we will become c^@$s once more.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If they could sell a CPU at 4Ghz and 700Mhz boost to all cores and 1Ghz boost on two cores reliably off ever wafer, they would.

It seems more like they are.

1) Binning with more flaws and higher voltages. Salvage more dies that have higher power consumption, or lower clock potential.
2) Screwing with overclockers.
3) Protecting their product. Preventing overclocking on more boards.
4) Trying to make more money. People will be pushed to buy higher priced parts to ensure performance.

This is what is very likely going on.

 

[EarthDog]

This is what is very likely going on.

You think so?

1. TDP is a given value and all. So, no. Period.
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with overclockers... do tell how these are associated...
3. What?????? What do motherboards have to do with this?????
4. What 2x????? Performance doesnt change...

Seriously... none of that makes any sense whatsoever. Wow.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You think so?

1. TDP is a given value and all. So, no. Period.
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with overclockers... do tell how these are associated...
3. What?????? What do motherboards have to do with this?????
4. What 2x????? Performance doesnt change...

Seriously... none of that makes any sense whatsoever. Wow.

Um, did you read the response I was quoting? Try again...

 

[EarthDog]

I did.. and answered it one by one... with numbers. It was a response to both of you. I dont buy any of his four reasons.

 

[Kanan]

It is funny that some people will always defend certain companies (Intel in this case) no matter what they're doing.

Again: hiding information intentionally - now, not always, they didn't do it before - isn't a good thing. It is not possible that this is a good thing, it means, they have to take precautions to not get into issues with people when they can't guarantee a certain clock on these locked CPUs - thus removing the information so they don't have to guarantee anything. It's called politics and happens everyday. This is basically technology politics. Some people will buy this i5 8400 and it will perform way slower than the golden sample in the reviews and then they're screwed. Especially when they don't recognise it. Basically what I said earlier. There's nothing good in hiding information, and no, I don't owe Intel anything. Nobody does. They want me / us to buy their stuff, so they have to give us the information we want, or we go and buy AMD, for example. We don't owe them anything, they have to deliver. Funny to think of the opposite even for a second.

 

[londiste]

JackOne, Intel has not been publishing that information for CPUs with more cores for a long while now. For desktop 7000-series, the tables showed up only in September, for 6/8-core s2011 CPUs the tables showed up for 5000-series in late September. There is nothing new here.

And again, Intel is not alone in this. AMD as the main competitor has never released these details. And in a the same way, they do have low baseclock models in the lineup. An example - Ryzen 7 1700 has base clock of 3 GHz. If I am wrong in this, please link to AMD documentation with a frequency table for Ryzen CPUs (I have been looking at some result discrepancies in reviews that seem to boil down to different clock speeds in some tests, so far I have been unable to find documentation about what the clock speeds are supposed to be).

 

[Kanan]

JackOne, Intel has not been publishing that information for CPUs with more cores for a long while now. For desktop 7000-series, the tables showed up only in September, for 6/8-core s2011 CPUs the tables showed up for 5000-series in late September. There is nothing new here.

This isn't about AMD, and this is news. If it weren't news it obviously wouldn't be reported and debated everywhere.

Basically, using AMD to defend Intel, is what demasks you as a fanboy, aside from defending Intel anyway.

 

[rtwjunkie]

They want me / us to buy their stuff, so they have to give us the information we want, or we go and buy AMD, for example. We don't owe them anything, they have to deliver.

Actually Intel doesn't owe you or any of us anything other than a working product...and this lack of provided information does not affect the working product. If you or we don't like what they offer then we don't buy it.

This information about all cores boost isn't necessary. Indeed, and you may not remember the days, but it will bring back some of the sense of accomplishment of overclocking. It adds a bit of mystery to find out what each chip will do.

 

[dorsetknob]

Indeed, and you may not remember the days, but it will bring back some of the sense of accomplishment of overclocking. It adds a bit of mystery to find out what each chip will do.

Yes" like Before plug and play Bios" were Common
when you had to set dip Switches and jumpers to get FSB Speed and the CPU multiplier to set the CPU speed ( and your potential massive overclock

 

[Kanan]

Actually Intel doesn't owe you or any of us anything other than a working product...and this lack of provided information does not affect the working product. If you or we don't like what they offer then we don't buy it.

Again, I don't understand why some people here are defending a company known for abusive and shady marketing tricks.

It does very well affect the working product, this is what its all about. If I know the i5 8400 won't boost to 3800 MHz, but instead, depending on quality of the CPU or ASIC, just to 3400, I simply wouldn't buy it. And I wouldn't buy such a shitty locked CPU anyway. I find locked CPUs a nonsense in general. They are made to force us to buy more expensive CPUs just to get unlocked ones. AMD isn't doing that. Intel is doing it, and now they are also effectively lying about Turbo Boost as well.

This information about all cores boost isn't necessary. Indeed, and you may not remember the days, but it will bring back some of the sense of accomplishment of overclocking. It adds a bit of mystery to find out what each chip will do.

I remember those days but this isn't about that. The i5 8400 is locked, no funny dip switches, nothing.

The information is very necessary, it's necessary enough for multiple news on web pages and thousands of posts on the net. The i5 8400 is working great in reviews because of cherry picked examples sent to reviewers from Intel, but the average CPU won't be that great and not boost to 3800 MHz which greatly decreases its performance. I'm also pretty tired of repeating myself to deaf ears.

 

[londiste]

This isn't about AMD, and this is news. If it weren't news it obviously wouldn't be reported and debated everywhere.

Plenty of things that are not news are reported and debated.
In that sector (mass-market desktop processors) there are only two players - AMD and Intel. There are no other companies to try and determine what is industry standard practice on clock speeds. Trying to understand if Intel is doing something weird here should be part of the debate.

The i5 8400 is working great in reviews because of cherry picked examples sent to reviewers from Intel, but the average CPU won't be that great and not boost to 3800 MHz which greatly decreases its performance. I'm also pretty tired of repeating myself to deaf ears.

Any reliable source for that beyond simple suspicions?

 

[EarthDog]

Again, I don't understand why some people here are defending a company known for abusive and shady marketing tricks.

It does very well affect the working product, this is what its all about. If I know the i5 8400 won't boost to 3800 MHz, but instead, depending on quality of the CPU or ASIC, just to 3400, I simply wouldn't buy it. And I wouldn't buy such a shitty locked CPU anyway. I find locked CPUs a nonsense in general. They are made to force us to buy more expensive CPUs just to get unlocked ones. AMD isn't doing that. Intel is doing it, and now they are also effectively lying about Turbo Boost as well.

I remember those days but this isn't about that. The i5 8400 is locked, no funny dip switches, nothing.

The information is very necessary, it's necessary enough for multiple news on web pages and thousands of posts on the net. The i5 8400 is working great in reviews because of cherry picked examples sent to reviewers from Intel, but the average CPU won't be that great and not boost to 3800 MHz which greatly decreases its performance. I'm also pretty tired of repeating myself to deaf ears.

Speculative at best... all of this.

Again, all they said was they are not listing the spec. Turbo boost still works the EXACT SAME WAY and will vary on the external factors intel setup like temperatures and power. Anything else outside of that is reading between the lines and is meritless.



Amazing what people read and take away from the same exact information then purport to be the truth...