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
allenb - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
Nicely done, Ian, very nicely done. The PC hardware world could do with more reporting like this.eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Indeed, all the so called PC tech press should be ashamed of how they spun this story. Toms didn`t even switch motherboard while testing this issue. The motherboard was the problem and they just transposed the problem to all their testings.Toms is officially a joke of a site. Nothing coming from them since Just Buy It! can be trusted.
JasonMZW20 - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
As always, very insightful background, analysis, and ultimate conclusions, Dr. Cutress (had to shoe that in because it sounds cool, right?).I felt it was a bit overblown and I knew that performance with the "fixed" BIOS would be within standard deviation. I said as much on Reddit too. Software polling has limitations, as you rightly pointed out.
Arbie - Tuesday, September 17, 2019 - link
A very high quality article - upholding the AT standard for sure - which was sorely needed. Thanks!davide445 - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Finally an intelligent article looking at objective elements.So bored in reading Tom's hardware articles (that I avoid as possible if there are any other option) , where is clear in my opinion the focus as pro Intel ads. Fast articles so they are the only one on the subject, no real deepening of the subject but only on controversial elements, no comments possible so just a single opinion. Unfortunately I suppose this is how media is working and getting paid.
Peter2k - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Just a note that der8auer actually asked AMD, and AMD told him, which software to use, which frequency for monitoring and which software to use to produce loadWhich Windows version, which drivers,....
So how to monitor and how its read, sure, but AMD did specify, so by AMD rules it should stack up to AMD marketing figures
Secondly
Ryzen 3000 is a good CPU even when missing 50Mhz, if they can't boost that, then don't advertise on the "optimistic side"
If silicone lottery really plays into this, just be pragmatic about it
Thirdly
Don't have an official marketing video out talking, and drawing curves, about reaching 4.75 when most CPU's can't really reach 4.5
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Well, some of the chips are hitting the announced frequency...And now even more after this new AGESA update.
Oliseo - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
Dude, asking a bunch of techies who follow sites like this and deciding that 67% of customers do not expect CPU's to hit their turbo frequencies... Do I need to state the obvious here?If the average Joe see's "4.7Ghz Turbo", they expect "4.7 Turbo", and anything else than that is fraud.
eva02langley - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - link
You read the article? Those are not guaranteed speed and most of the time the difference in speed doesn`t translate in better performances.twtech - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Yes, I read the article, I read and understood the reasoning behind it - I still disagree with it. If most of your chips can only hit 4.5 and not 4.7, then market it as 4.5 GHz turbo. If you want to sell the 4.7 chips as 4.7, then bin for it.