2600K Turbo Boost Question

therealjustin

therealjustin

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
471
Does the 2600K's Turbo Boost allow all four cores to reach 3.8Ghz or just one at a time when needed?
 
///M3 said:
Does the 2600K's Turbo Boost allow all four cores to reach 3.8Ghz or just one at a time when needed?
Click to expand...

On Sandy Bridge processors, Turbo can provide a 400Mhz speed boost in single-threaded workloads, 300Mhz in dual-threaded workloads, 200Mhz in triple-threaded workloads, and 100Mhz in applications that utilize four threads or more
Click to expand...
taken from a certain canuck website ;) u know, that competes with [hard] ;)
 
So this means that it should never go to 3.8Ghz on all four cores. I thought so.


I ask because I spoke with an Intel "technical support" guy and he told me that if you run 1600Mhz or faster RAM that the multiplier will go to 3.8Ghz automatically. This is what happens on my Gigabyte Z68 board with the latest BIOS update except all four cores go to 3.8Ghz at the same time, even during web browsing.


With the previous BIOS version my 2600K would only go to 3.5Ghz on all cores even WITH 1600Mhz RAM(XMP enabled). Something doesn't seem right and Gigabyte nor Intel want to explain anything.
 
yea i believe the turbo tech takes voltage from unused cores or the unused igpu to raise the speed, so it shouldn't affect all four cores like that unless its taking all the voltage from the igpu or maybe the turbo clock setting is set higher and the speedstep tech is making the jump to 3.8. but out of the box it shouldn't do that.

i'm not an expert, i have watched all of the retail edge tech video's and articles describing all the 2nd gen tech so i know the 'official' descriptions but i've only owned a 2600k a couple of weeks and have minimal hands on experience
 
///M3 said:
Does the 2600K's Turbo Boost allow all four cores to reach 3.8Ghz or just one at a time when needed?
Click to expand...

You can do either.

It depends on how the BIOS is setup and there is no automatic 38x for all cores above 1600MHz RAM unless it's in the BIOS to do it that way with auto settings.
 
Kulawend said:
Pictures speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

Then it's this picture the OP might be interested in.
72384214.png


Try setting turbo enabled and turbo 1-4 as 38,37,36,35 if you prefer this over a flat 38.
 
Kulawend said:
Pictures speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

That's a nice picture but with a 2600K, it depends on how you set up your bios.

CPL0 knows what he is talking about. You can set this CPU up so when fully loaded, all 4 cores are running at a 38 multiplier or higher if you like.
 
The problem is, when I try changing the Turbo Boost ratio to anything lower than 38 on any of the cores it will not save. Same with the CPU clock ratio. It instantly jumps back to 38 unless I lower the memory down to 1333Mhz. Everything gets locked at 38:mad:
 
Try these manual settings.

CPU Clock Ratio 34
Real-Time Changes in OS Disabled
Turbo Ratio(1-Core) 38
Turbo Ratio(2-Core) 37
Turbo Ratio(3-Core) 36
Turbo Ratio(4-Core) 35
C3/C6 State Support Enabled
CPU EIST Function Enabled

I can only think if your C3/C6 is on auto the BIOS might disable C3/C6. They are required to allow traditional turbo to work. No reason for you not to have what you want other than the BIOS messing with you.
 
Isn't this a well known "issue" with Asus and Gigabyte boards? With a K processor and manual 1600mhz ram settings, turbo is broken... basically, one active core and 4 active cores run at the top bin. Supposedly, it's not really broken, but just manufacturers playing fast and loose with Intel's recommendations. I'm using an Intel DP67BG and it doesn't do that. You can read about it on any of the Asus 1155 mobo reviews, here and elsewhere.

If you read the motherboard benchmarks, you'll see that the "affected" boards do better as a result of reaching for the top bin regardless of active core count.
 
Idk about Gigabyte but have no problem running 2133 with stepped turbo on Asus. As much as I'd like to run 4 cores at 50x the cooling isn't up to it so I run 46,47,48,50.
 
CPL0 said:
Idk about Gigabyte but have no problem running 2133 with stepped turbo on Asus. As much as I'd like to run 4 cores at 50x the cooling isn't up to it so I run 46,47,48,50.
Click to expand...

Are you using XMP profiles to reach 2133? Also, I'm not sure it effects higher turbo bins (above 2500k/2600k turbo multis ie. 46-50 isn't effected). Somehow, if you set manual memory settings, but leave everything else, it forces turbo to the highest 1core bin for all cores, so with 1 core you get 3.8 and with 4 cores you get 3.8.
 
Last edited:
LOL my whole chip runs at 4.8ghz - Turbo is one of the gayest dumbshit technologies I have ever seen. Just another marketing ploy. Just oc manually.

Anyways pricing has been released on SDB-E so I will be handing this little 2600K that could off on someone who doesnt care to pay a grand for a chip.
 
tangoseal said:
LOL my whole chip runs at 4.8ghz - Turbo is one of the gayest dumbshit technologies I have ever seen. Just another marketing ploy. Just oc manually.

Anyways pricing has been released on SDB-E so I will be handing this little 2600K that could off on someone who doesnt care to pay a grand for a chip.
Click to expand...

Turbo implementation with SB is great. It's not that relevant if you're using a P67/Z68 with a K series AND high end air cooling or water. But that's an small, small group. It makes a huge difference in laptops and small form factors as well as HTPCs. Plus, if you don't like it you can just turn it off. Turbo is really just a method to get a workload done faster so the system agent can drop the voltage and clocks down to idle as soon as possible. It's not just marketing, but a really good idea for mainstream laptops and desktops. Plus, in a good UEFI/BIOS, users have a great deal of control over the process. AMDs Turbo version in Thuban didn't work so hot -- that was really just marketing, cause it never worked right.
 
ckryan said:
Turbo implementation with SB is great. It's not that relevant if you're using a P67/Z68 with a K series AND high end air cooling or water. But that's an small, small group. It makes a huge difference in laptops and small form factors as well as HTPCs. Plus, if you don't like it you can just turn it off. Turbo is really just a method to get a workload done faster so the system agent can drop the voltage and clocks down to idle as soon as possible. It's not just marketing, but a really good idea for mainstream laptops and desktops. Plus, in a good UEFI/BIOS, users have a great deal of control over the process. AMDs Turbo version in Thuban didn't work so hot -- that was really just marketing, cause it never worked right.
Click to expand...

Well for the laptop sector you make a good point. For the desktop sector ummmmm... 97% of people could care less what Turbo Boost is much less how it even works.

All they care is they have a little sticker on the front of the computer that says" Hey look, I have an INTEL inside" and that Best Buy guy told me this was the fastest computer out.

Here you want some real turbo boost. Here is the Garrett in my STI lol:

Put that in your computers Intel and now you can really call it "Turbo Boost".
GT30R95percent%20done_J.jpg
 
All of my friends owned 1g DSMs.
So I bought an A4 1.8t Quattro.
This was ten years ago, but I still get jokes about my tiny KKK-03.
I don't even own the car anymore, just the turbo.
 
All the Asus boards we have tested lately on P67 and Z68 do not "scale," it is 3.8 across all 4 cores or 1.6GHz Speedstep if you change any setting beyond full default.
 
TehQuick said:
that's pretty cryptic. Could you please elaborate?
Click to expand...

Sounds like it means they go all the way to 3.8 even with all cores operating, instead of the scaled 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 based on the number of cores being used.
 
I haven't seen too many of these CPUs set up so they are running at a steady 1.6 GHz when idle. Cores and threads are constantly entering and exiting various C sleep states so the multiplier tends to be very dynamic. Don't believe everything that CPU-Z is telling you because it was designed for consistent validation purposes and not accuracy when lightly loaded.

Edit: Here's an example.

cpuzu.png


Check out i7 Turbo GT if you want to have a look at the average multiplier for each thread of your CPU in real time. It follows the Intel recommended monitoring method and tells it like it is.

i7 Turbo GT 1.30
http://www.mediafire.com/?4uixpjtezznuzkd
 
Last edited:
CPL0 said:
Is going from the LFM direct to turbo on load a bad idea, IMHO no.
Click to expand...

Actually, this has recently been proven to be a great idea. Throttling a Core i CPU so it spends lots of time using the intermediate multipliers decreases performance and increases power consumption. The faster a CPU can run when lightly loaded, the quicker it will get its work done and the more time it will be able to spend in one of the power saving C States.

Here's a good paper that explains it all.

Power Optimization – a Reality Check
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~krioukov/realityCheck.pdf
 
A lot of useful info!


I plan on overclocking as soon as I replace my Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU that has a fit whenever I do anything intensive. In fact, just the BIOS update alone made it start to buzz because of the slightly higher load which is one reason I wanted to drop it back to 3.4 until my new PSU arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top