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
yannigr2 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
"(3) because it just wasn’t worth drawing attention to it."Oh, no no, please do an article about this. A comparison with Intel's marketing slides from, lets say, 2013, when Intel had clearly the upper hand would be interesting.
eva02langley - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
You don't get it, Intel goal was to draw attention and sow confusion by spreading FUD to damage AMD momentum.Anandtech acted professionally in this matter and I salute them for it. I get your point that writting an article that could backfire on them would have its advantages, however it would just continue feeding this FUD thrown by Intel. It would just help Intel in the end to maintain the doubt that should not even exist in the beginning.
casperes1996 - Thursday, September 19, 2019 - link
Ah, yes. The Heisenberg Turbo-certainty principle at play.And of course not to mention the deeply philosophical quantum of a processor bursting but nobody noticing, did it even burst?
Jest aside, great, balanced article. Good to get misconceptions dealt with. I like AMD's approach to turbo. Only marketting could be argued it a negative I'd say. In general I think it's almost like we're going back to the frequency wars. Marketting should instead emphasis how little importance frequency has. And really it should almost be obvious to people, since pretty much everyone has tried upgrading their computer with a newer chip, experiencing a much greater difference than if frequency was the determining factor. Don't know about you lot, but I'd rather have a modern chip at 1GHz than (if it were possible) a Motorola 68K at 8GHz
AntonErtl - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
When I bought my first Intel CPU with Turbo (a Core i7-6700K), my expectation was that base was guaranteed, and Turbo is an unpredictable bonus in speed. So not everyone has the expectations that you claim everybody has because of experience with Intel. Later, my experience was that the base frequency means very little: With little load, the CPU clocks at some low frequency; with load, it clocks beyond the base frequency. And then there are things like the AVX offset, which seems to affect even my laptop's Core i3-3227U (which clocks at 1.7GHz instead of 1.9GHz when running matrix multiplication code), although AVX offset is not documented for this CPU.Back to AMD, in hindsight it might have been a better marketing strategy for AMD to announce the Ryzen 3000 CPUs with 100MHz less boost.
Concerning the article, I found the way strange in which the different approaches of Intel and AMD to deal with the limits of the hardware were portrayed. If I pay the same amount, and get the same stock performance, then I prefer a CPU with more headroom (for either overclocking or future degradation). If I pay the same amount and get the same overclocking performance (i.e., headroom), then yes, a CPU that uses more of that headroom is probably preferable (at least if it does not affect durability); but does the pricing of the CPUs actually reflect the headroom? In any case, for non-overclockers price/stock-performance and durability are relevant, and headroom is merely interesting.
lakedude - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
This per core binning is basically giving you a chip with ZERO headroom, none. Intel chips like the famous A300 cel have typically had great headroom with a few exceptions over the years. I applaud AMD's recent efforts but they are pushing their chips to the max and overstating their ability. This not guaranteed crap is for the birds. I'd be pissed if I had purchased a chip and it didn't get the full turbo that was advertised. If the chip can't hit a certain performance level with certainty then use more weasel words like "up to". As in "up to 4GHz turbo possible with some luck"Korguz - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
with that, intel cpus should also have on their boxes : at base clocks, our cpus use xx watts, but, in real world usage, and if you over clock, our chips can use 100 to 150 watts more.lakedude - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
Agreed, same type of thing with Intel's TDP. They blamed the motherboards, roll eyes.John_M - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
Thing is, AMD doesn't call it "Turbo". If tech journalists and reviewers called "Precision Boost" by its proper name there might be less confusion amongst the masses.lakedude - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link
Precision Boost is more descriptive but the problem isn't so much with the name as the rating.Before reading this article I would have expected even the slowest core to be able to reach the advertised Boost speed. For example a AMD RYZEN 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.4 GHz Max Boost) should be able to hit 4.4 GHz with each and every core and for longer than a few nano-seconds. Of course being unlocked OC frequencies beyond 4.4 GHz would not be assured.
Now both Intel (TDP) and AMD (Boost) are pushing the limits of their technology and their own terminology.
Good thing we have AnandTech!
Badelhas - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link
This is an awesome article, this is why I love AnandTech. Thank you.