• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Turbo Boost

turbo boost is completely stable. on my i7 cpu, it raises the multiplier by 1 on one of the cores.i have it enabled, i dont know anyone who does not have it enabled.
 
I don't have it enabled, I see it a little pointless on an overclocked i7, good idea for stock though.
 
Turbo boost gives you a bit more performance when you need it (ie at high CPU load).
Its not inconsistent, it does what it says on the tin.

A dual core app wont cause the CPU to throttle.

It works by increasing the CPU speed by 1 or 2 speed bins.
A speed bin is 133MHz so the CPU speed is increased by 1x or 2x the speed bin.

It is an auto overclocking feature so if you are already overclocking, you dont want this enabled unless there is ample headroom for the overclock increase.
 
S#IT being an 80s child every time I see Turbo Boost I think about this:

Image1.gif


and this...

Image2.gif


and this...

Image3.gif


and finally this!

Image4.gif


Lolz!
 
Haha, I remember that too. Turbo boost is great all the way around. I think the OP should do a few tests to see if running a dual threaded app while a single threaded app is running 'turbo boosted' and see if you lose performance.
 
Turbo boost is great. I run the i5 in a SFF case (SG05) on stock cooler and since most current apps/games use only 1 or two cores the 20% bump in speed (from 2.67 to 3.2 GHz) should be helpful (though I am yet to test it properly).
 
From what I read TB is not consitant so you are in fact throttling all the time. It also reduces speed bin LOWER then your stock rated speed at certain times.

I would not use TB period no more then would I use C1E or speedstep. This is just another usless Intel marketing tool much like HT.....
 
How is speedstep a marketing tool? It lowers my clock speed and voltage when my system is idle, lowering my temperature and my energy consumption. Please explain.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Flexion, you've just made my day.

I'll be sure to remember you when I press Turbo Boost and jump over my desk.
 
maleficarus said:
From what I read TB is not consitant so you are in fact throttling all the time. It also reduces speed bin LOWER then your stock rated speed at certain times.

I would not use TB period no more then would I use C1E or speedstep. This is just another usless Intel marketing tool much like HT.....
Click to expand...

why is lowering your multiplier and vcore when you are not using your cpu's full capabilities a bad thing? my qpi is 210mhz, and the lowest speedstep will go is a 12x multi. 2520mhz on an i7 for being on the intarwebnet is still a bit too much horsepower. i wish it would go lower. as far as c1e is concerned, i thought this was related to the various sleep/hibernation modes that you can use. i leave this disabled, my pc is rarely in the situation that i would need it to be hibernating.
 
If I pay for a chip to run at a certain speed then I want it to be running at that speed all the time. Not just at certain loads. I can understand using stuff like this for laptops due to power saving issues but not for the home PC.
 
And.... you still haven't explained how it's a marketing gimmick. I see your point though, the thought of my box not running full bore while I type a word document or while it's running utorrent @ 4am just makes me queasy.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
It gets in the way if your overclocking, for instance I like to keep my CPU multiplier lower so I can crank my RAM up higher. If I had TB on, instead of 17x I would be at 21 and WAM computer would crash. When I had it very mildly OC'd it was a nice feature though.
 
misan-thrope said:
It gets in the way if your overclocking, for instance I like to keep my CPU multiplier lower so I can crank my RAM up higher. If I had TB on, instead of 17x I would be at 21 and WAM computer would crash. When I had it very mildly OC'd it was a nice feature though.
Click to expand...

I think TB is disabled automatically any time you specify lower multi than the max your cpu is designed for (depending on BIOS/mobo)
 
Last edited:
maleficarus said:
If I pay for a chip to run at a certain speed then I want it to be running at that speed all the time. Not just at certain loads. I can understand using stuff like this for laptops due to power saving issues but not for the home PC.
Click to expand...

does it bother you when you sit at a stoplight idling at 800rpm when actually your car can cruise at 3 or 4 grand?
 
delvryboy said:
And.... you still haven't explained how it's a marketing gimmick. I see your point though, the thought of my box not running full bore while I type a word document or while it's running utorrent @ 4am just makes me queasy.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

Its a marketing gimmick in the sense that it is simply just not really needed for our personal computers. It serves no real purpose other then for Intel to be able to use it as some kind of "extra" on the side of the CPU box. HT is pointless with multicore cpu's and anyone that thinks it isn't really is cluless. HT made total sense with single core chips but 2/4 cores? LOL

But back to this Turbo Boost thing. The thought of me buying a top dollar chip for example: 3GHz chip that will only run at 3GHz under certian load conditions is 1 step shy of a scam and Intel is really lucky there isn't some sort of lawsuit filed over this someday!
 
no, it will run at 3ghz at all load conditions, unless you choose to enable the options to have it not run at 3ghz under all load consitions. if someone successfully files a lawsuit against intel for including the user initiated options to save power and possibly extend the life of its product, we are in big trouble.
 
maleficarus said:
The thought of me buying a top dollar chip for example: 3GHz chip that will only run at 3GHz under certian load conditions is 1 step shy of a scam and Intel is really lucky there isn't some sort of lawsuit filed over this someday!
Click to expand...
Did you even read the specs? My core i5 is officially rated at 2.67 GHz (see below). Turbo-boost (upto 3.2 GHz on 2 cores) is an extra.

stali@i5:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU 750 @ 2.67GHz
 
While most of you have a good points here. We're forgetting something. Turbo Boost is really marketed toward the un-enlightened (read not [H]) computer user/consumer. Search your feelings in this. Go back in time...

Yes, for a period of time when we were about the 12 years old, we bought computers from a magazine called computer shopper and the only people who knew about overclocking were folks who fooled around with jumpers and soldering irons. Intel would have gotten all of us with this talk of "turbo boost"... ZOMG automatic overclocking???

For Joe Six Pack who knows only of "Knight Rider's" turbo boost, Intel's solution is probably the golden goose. These are catch phrases that are most handily used by your typical "Best Buy" computer salesman and not something we should be trifling with. You know... Kind of like how the Atari Jaguar was 64 bit.

It's meant to give things like loading up a word processor or web browser a light boost. It won't provide any real benefit under full load like a video encode, and may help a teeeensy bit on gaming. That being said it would probably be smarter to properly OC a processor to run all cores under load at a nice OC clock, while enabling speedstep to avoid wasting energy at the high clock speeds while idling.

I'm happy that I did get some Knight Rider flashbacks, from reading this thread title on the [H]forum though! hehehe... :D
 
Flexion said:
For Joe Six Pack who knows only of "Knight Rider's" turbo boost, Intel's solution is probably the golden goose. These are catch phrases that are most handily used by your typical "Best Buy" computer salesman and not something we should be trifling with. You know... Kind of like how the Atari Jaguar was 64 bit.
Click to expand...
To be fair even OC is overrated because more often L1/L2 cache is a limiting factor (though you cant do anything about it). Most programs and applications only achieve a fraction of theoretical peak performance because of this reason.

Smaller cache was also the main reason for lower performance (and price) of Celerons compared to higher priced CPUs which ran at similar speeds.
 
rusi said:
To be fair even OC is overrated because more often L1/L2 cache is a limiting factor (though you cant do anything about it). Most programs and applications only achieve a fraction of theoretical peak performance because of this reason.

Smaller cache was also the main reason for lower performance (and price) of Celerons compared to higher priced CPUs which ran at similar speeds.
Click to expand...

Well, in comparison to today's apps vs. the past and today's procs, vs. the past, I've seen cache sizes grow leaps and bounds, that with integrated memory controllers, you've got a potent mix in processing power today that's cheap as chips (pun intended).

The Penryn is a clear example of cache scaling, but on Nehalem Intel actually scaled back on the total cache available and was able to improve performance. So the L1/L2 argument here is not so clear. In such cases latencies, pre-fetch, branch prediction, etc.(read architectural differences) will come into play.

The i7 and nehalem architecture in general scales pretty damn well with overclocking, meaning you DO see real differences between 3.6 to 4.0GHz. For a casual user I still maintain my opinion that it would be smarter for them to learn how to OC the processor mildly and enable speedstep, so that real power is available when they need it.

i.e.) let's say it's a 920, 860 or 750, it would be smart to have the processor run all four cores at 3.2 while at load and then dropping back to default at 2.66 or lower on idle.

This is allot smarter than running Turbo Boost on 2 cores sporadically for a couple quickie threads, and then reverting back to default clocks once all 4 cores are loaded. Intel is probably banking on the fact that most users won't notice the difference in blindfold testing. Moreover, you can't really say they're not being truthful about what Turbo Boost is.

P.S. "Even OC is overrated..." Man this is the [H], and I have one thing to say. If you build it... They will come... Meaning if you wield the power, then it is up to you to figure out what to do with it now.
 
Last edited:
rusi said:
To be fair even OC is overrated because more often L1/L2 cache is a limiting factor (though you cant do anything about it).
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, overclocking does improve cache performance as well.
 
turbo boost is completely stable. on my i7 cpu, it raises the multiplier by 1 on one of the cores.i have it enabled, i dont know anyone who does not have it enabled.
Click to expand...
I don't, it completely screws my CPU over stability-wise.

To be fair even OC is overrated because more often L1/L2 cache is a limiting factor (though you cant do anything about it).
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that the clocks that are required to empty the caches is tied to the CPU clock. It would be a bit silly to me to have such an integral contributor to CPU performance function with its own, separate clock.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
I'm pretty sure that the clocks that are required to empty the caches is tied to the CPU clock. It would be a bit silly to me to have such an integral contributor to CPU performance function with its own, separate clock.
Click to expand...
Intel CPUs since the Pentium 3 (and also the Pentium Pro which came a few years earlier) have all had full-speed L2 cache.
 
Agreed Intel Turbo Boost is O/C for Dummies. But remember it a big change for Intel to sanction overclocking at all albeit Turbo Boost. I've had no problems O/C my i7 920.
 
personally, i use turbo boost because my xeon has a max multiplier of 19x without it. with turbo boost enabled, i get a 20x multiplier which allows me to run a lower bclk and still sit at my desired 3.6GHz.

sure, i'm sitting below my target overclock until turbo boost kicks in, but that's just fine. i don't need the extra power until i need it, ya know? i also have speedstep enabled for this same reason.
 
xcetera said:
Agreed Intel Turbo Boost is O/C for Dummies. But remember it a big change for Intel to sanction overclocking at all albeit Turbo Boost. I've had no problems O/C my i7 920.
Click to expand...
Turbo Boost is not really the same thing as overclocking.
 
maleficarus said:
Its a marketing gimmick in the sense that it is simply just not really needed for our personal computers. It serves no real purpose other then for Intel to be able to use it as some kind of "extra" on the side of the CPU box. HT is pointless with multicore cpu's and anyone that thinks it isn't really is cluless. HT made total sense with single core chips but 2/4 cores? LOL

But back to this Turbo Boost thing. The thought of me buying a top dollar chip for example: 3GHz chip that will only run at 3GHz under certian load conditions is 1 step shy of a scam and Intel is really lucky there isn't some sort of lawsuit filed over this someday!
Click to expand...

Oh.. god... worms... everywhere...
 
Zero82z said:
Intel CPUs since the Pentium 3 (and also the Pentium Pro which came a few years earlier) have all had full-speed L2 cache.
Click to expand...

Celeron 300A anyone? L2 cache hasn't been a limiting factor on performance since we lost those cool Turbo buttons on our cases.
 
Jeremy C said:
Celeron 300A anyone? L2 cache hasn't been a limiting factor on performance since we lost those cool Turbo buttons on our cases.
Click to expand...

They are gone now? :eek:

RIP oh mighty Turbo button.


2446374749f5044a2333.jpg
 
Zero82z said:
Turbo Boost is not really the same thing as overclocking.
Click to expand...


Actually that is exactly what it is doing. :) It is overclocking the CPU beyond its rated speed.


What I found interesting with the latest Westmere / i5 / i3 stuff we looked at with dual core processors; I found it almost impossible to get the CPU to run at its rated speed no matter the workload.
 
Kyle

You might want to check out a program I wrote recently called ThrottleStop. Its main purpose is to help out with a wide variety of Dell and Acer laptops that can slow down significantly while gaming or using any application that stresses the CPU + GPU at the same time.

It works well with the modern Core i7/i5/i3 processors and can accurately report the average multiplier for each thread in real time. It makes it a lot easier to see what cores are mostly in a sleep state and what cores are working the hardest and what their average multiplier is. It follows the recommended method in the November 2008 Intel Turbo White Paper which hardly any monitoring software bothers to follow.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/ThrottleStop.zip

It also works correctly on most Core 2 CPUs except for the QX models which I'll hopefully be adding support for in the near future. This tool should make it easier to understand how turbo boost works on the newer CPUs. Running a single threaded benchmark like Super PI mod is a good test while you watch what the multipliers are up to on each thread and how the load (C0%) is distributed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top