Slashdot Mirror
Intel Turbo Boost vs. AMD Turbo Core Explained
An anonymous reader recommends a PC Authority article explaining the whys and wherefores of Intel Turbo Boost and AMD Turbo Core approaches to wringing more apparent performance out of multi-core CPUs. "Gordon Moore has a lot to answer for. His prediction in the now seminal 'Cramming more components onto integrated circuits' article from 1965 evolved into Intel's corporate philosophy and have driven the semiconductor industry forward for 45 years. This prediction was that the number of transistors on a CPU would double every 18 months and has driven CPU design into the realm of multicore. But the thing is, even now there are few applications that take full advantage of multicore processers. What this has led to is the rise of CPU technology designed to speed up single core performance when an application doesn't use the other cores. Intel's version of the technology is called Turbo Boost, while AMD's is called Turbo Core. This article neatly explains how these speed up your PC, and the difference between the two approaches. Interesting reading if you're choosing between Intel and AMD for your next build."
...Turbo switches on our workstations again like back in the day?
That read like the pasting of two press releases together. That did very little to explain what is going on beyond press grade buzz words.
http://www.cooltechpc.com/ctpc/images/intel_775_fan.jpg
After all, I am strangely colored.
Rather than cranking up the GHz of each core to obtain more speed, I wish they'd concentrate on keeping it cool. I hate the fan noise, and multicore was a way around that because it rarely heats up with standard usage. Hence less or no cooling required.
"We've got to find some way to get that fan to rotate to annoy the users... ah I have a cunning plan..."
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
For that matter, can we have one more thing: a way to limit max core usage to, say, 10% (imagine you're playing an old game on a laptop, for example Diablo2; now, many games have the unfortunate habit of consuming all available CPU power...whether they need to or not; taking battery with them)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Both do the following: they detect when some cores are being unused, they then give less power and decrease the clock speed to some of less used cores, and the power/clockspeed is then increased on the rest of the cores. The AMDs have do this by having 2 different of modes of operation with fixed power distribution/clockspeed settings for each mode. Intel does something more dynamic and on-the-fly.
Now I might have mis-summarized the article, but shouldn't that have been the article summary instead of a rephrasing of the article's lead?
The article seems to have absolutely no relationship to Moore's Law, or to whatever the author imagine's Intel's "corporate philosophy" to be.
Why is that extraneous, off-topic garbage included in the summary?
What's "apparent performance"? It's either faster or it's not.
The article kinda glosses over things. So a more detailed explanation of how Intel's turbo boost works:
As stated, every core has a budget for the maximum heat it can give off, and the maximum power it can use, as well as a max clock speed that it can handle. However, when you look at these things, they aren't all even, one ends up being the limiting factor. So Intel said, ok, we design a chip to always run at a given speed and stay under the thermal and power envelopes. However, if it isn't running at that, we allow for speed increases. It can increase the speed of cores in 133MHz increments. If things go over, it throttles it back down again.
This can be done no matter how many cores are active, but the less that are active the more it is likely to be able to be. On desktop cores, it isn't a big deal since they usually run fairly near their speed limit anyhow. So you pay see only 1 or 2 max 133MHz increments that can happen. For laptop cores, in particular quad cores, it can be a lot more.
The Intel i7-720QM runs at 1.6GHz and has 1/1/6/9 turbo boost multipliers. That means with all 4 cores running, it can clock up at most 1 increment, to 1.73GHz. However with only one running, it can go to 2.8GHz, 9 133MHz clocks up. It allows for a processor that would be too fast to reside in the laptop to go in there with some flexibility. A desktop Core i7-930 is 2.8GHz with 1/1/1/2 turbo mode. That means it'll clock up to 2.93GHz with 2-4 cores active, and 3GHz with 1. Much less flexible, since it is already running near it's rated max clock speed.
Now this is not the same as speed step, which is their technology to down clock the CPUs when they aren't in so much use. Similar idea, but purse based on how hard the CPU is being asked to work, not based on if the system can handle the higher speeds.
As an aside, I'll call BS on the "Little uses multiple cores." Games these days are heavily going at least dual core, some even more. Reason is, if nothing else, the consoles are that way too. The Xbox 360 has 3 cores, 2 threads each. The PS3 has a weak CPU attached to 7 powerful SPUs. On a platform like that, you learn to do parallel or your games don't look as good. Same knowledge translates to the PC.
However there are still single core things, hence the turbo boost thing can be real useful. In laptops this is particularly the case. If the i7 quad was limited to 1.6GHz, few people would want it over one of the duals that can be 2.53GHz or more. Just too much loss in MHz to be worth it. However now, it can be the best of all worlds. A slower quad, a faster dual, whatever the apps call for, it handles.
It may have no turbines, but it does have an oscillator!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
What this article describes, is more like
"slowing cores down" to save energy, rather than "speeding up the cpu".
But will it allow me to jump over those traffic jams?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arL04K3HLMw
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
...for more cache instead of more processors? Think of something with as many transistors as a hex core but with only two cores and the rest used for L1 cache! I'd suggest lots more registers as well, but that would mean giving up on x86.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So they are bringing the Turbo Button back?
Seriously, When I was looking at laptops, 2 laptops that were pretty much the same in specks, one had a "Turbo" CPU the other's CPU was the speed of the "Boosted" one next to it...
The price difference... $20.00!!! I'll pay an extra $20 to have FULL SPEED ALL THE TIME!
Why this compromise? There's a huge need for developers to start thinking in terms of multicore CPUs. Offering them this solution is just postponing the inevitable. We need change now.
Does Intel's architecture adjust its management scheme based on CPU temperature? It'd be nice if having a better heat sink or a cooling system would allow the system to run even faster.
I've also been wondering why, given the new poly-core systems, we don't see a mix of CPU types in a system. Throwing a bunch of slower but less complex and therefore less expensive cores in with a few premium cores would result in a better balance, allowing the system to concentrate heavy-load apps on the faster CPUs while offloading less-intensive work onto the cheaper cores.
Wow - whoever wrote that article needs to go back to school. Did you know that the Intel solution is much more elegant because AMD tacked the Turbo core onto their K10 architecture they've been using for a while now?
The stock Intel coolers are designed to be economical and meet the thermal requirements, not good.
I use an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro. With my Q9550 I cannot make the fan spin up past the minimum, which is about 300rpm. The Intel board I use figures the CPU should maintain about a 20 degree thermal margin, meaning run 20 degrees below its rated max. If it is running hotter than that, the fan spins faster up to the max. If it is running cooler than that, the fan throttles back as low as the minimum. Idle, the CPU is around 40 degrees below the margin. If I crank up the processing, the heat will rise, but never high enough for the fan to speed up.
In all cases, the fan is inaudible in the room.
Also, you are aware that Intel makes more efficient, lower power CPU right? Have a desktop? Ok, instead of a Core i7 quad core, get a Core i3 dual core. It's made on the 32nm process and lacks some high end features (like VT-d and turbo boost) and runs rather low power. Has integrated low power graphics too, to further reduce whole system consumption. Just don't bitch that it isn't as powerful.
For that matter, get a system with an Atom. Some of those are down near a watt in terms of usage, yet they still have the performance and features needed to run a modern OS and do things like surf the web.
You can have low power efficient systems. You can have high power super systems. They are all available on the market today. You just can't have a system that uses very little energy and is a super performer.
Just wanted to clarify some of the misconceptions about the Turbo Boost...
The technology is fairly simple. At it's most level, we take the exhaust from the CPU fan and route it back into the intake of the system. If you're using Linux you can see the RPM increase by running 'top' (google Linux RPM for more information).
The turbo itself is a fairly simple technology. As you're aware, we can use pipes to stream the outputs of different applications together. In the case of Linux, we pipe the stdout stream to the stdin (the intake) of the turbo (tr) which increases the speed and feeds it into a different application. For example, we can increase the throughput of dd as follows:
dd if=/dev/zero | tr rpm | tee /proc/cpuinfo
This will increase the CPU speed by feeding output from dd into the turbo (and increasing the rpm) and finally pumping it back into the CPU.
On other platforms there are some proprietary solutions. For example, take the output of Adobe AIR to HyperV to PCSpeedup! then back into the processor.
Hope this helps...
They want their "Turbo" bullshit back.
For $300 you can get a brand new Dell - who builds a PC anymore?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Too bad people don't use even a single core to correct their mistakes.
Ah! I don't need to do such a thing! Apple decides for me*!
* please Apple, put a Core 2 Quad** in the next Mac mini!
** Before you say "Core 2 Quad is old technology", compare the processing power, the power and heat dissipation requirements and the cost of a Core 2 Quad vs the Core i3, i5 and i7, even the mobile versions.
When Intel came out with the Pentium Pro, they had a good 32-bit machine, and it ran UNIX and NT, in 32-bit mode, just fine. People bitched about its poor performance on 16-bit code; Intel had assumed that 16-bit code would have been replaced by 1995.
Intel hasn't made that mistake again. They test heavily against obsolete software.
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology is one of the many exciting new features that Intel has built into latest-generation Intel® microarchitecture. It automatically allows processor cores to run faster than the base operating frequency. Colotrim
I'm going with Turbo Boost for sure. With that my computer can jump over walls and lakes and stuff.
"You will not find a turbine (ok, rotor with blades) in your CPU"
Maybe not *IN* the CPU but the Delta that was on top of my heatsink was most certainly close to a turbine, right down to the ultra-high whining noise.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Turns out, you can figure out based on the kinds of programs yo run, how much cache you need to give good performance. With a sufficient amount of cache, you can have total effective throughput better than 90% of the throughput of just the cache itself. Thus more cache doesn't really get you anything. You find it is very much a logarithmic kind of function. With no cache, your performance is limited by the speed of the system memory. Just a little cache gives you a big increase. More makes sense, to a point (how much depends on the kind of programs you use) but it tapers off. So you double your cache and you get a 1% improvement. Not worth it.
Adding more CPUs isn't as simple as just putting another socket on the board. There are real issues to be dealt with. That's one of the reasons you see such jumps in price for things. Making a CPU and chipset that deal with only a single processor is easier than multiple. Also at a certain point you end up having to add "glue" chips which deal with all the issues of all the multiple CPUs.
Ok well that is all for symmetric multiprocessing, where all CPUs are equal. Add on a whole new layer of complexity if the CPUs are different and have different abilities and requirements.
Turbo boost and turbo core over-clock cores in use up to a thermal limit.
Hardly cutting edge stuff.
Because I still have to think of scenario in any modern OS where only one process wants CPU for itself.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Correct me if i'm wrong, and maybe i'm missing something here, but i think it's possible to simulate this kind of functionality on Linux with a script. Cores 2 to N are taken offline (echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu/offline), the "performance" governor is used for cpu0 (which causes it to run at full clock), then the script monitors usage of cpu0 and brings the other cores online as load on cpu0 goes up. When load goes down then the other cores can be taken offline again.
Michael Knight (or more probably Devon Miles) might sue Intel for the "turbo boost" concept.
Can i get turbo with this one: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/wp-content/uploads/newegg-sells-fake-core-i7-cpus-9.jpg ???
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
How to sell people lots and lots of cores but only have to actually deliver on one of them.
Neat.
Deleted
I don't get it.
Problems:
1) Intel hit a road block with being able to up the frequency it's processors (or anyone's processor's) could run at so marketing could no longer tout the next generation as being "faster."
2) Intel needs to be able to continue providing excuses for continuing computer/chip sales; one needs to upgrade to run the latest version of the bloated and inefficient MS Windows.
Solution:
Give marketing new materials by putting multiple symmetric cores on a single chip. This can be done at negligible cost while providing a great marketing device for selling the "need" to upgrade one's system.
Note that the SMP environment Intel came up with was NOT a solution for nor driven by any real life end users' problems. The only problem it solved was to provide marketing with a new sales campaign.
As someone who has spent almost thirty years designing computer systems, there are two (among others) critical elements in designing any computer (or other) system. The first we all know is KISS or Keep it Simple, Stupid!. Along with the elegance of a simple solution, one also gets reliability and efficiency. No one that has every worked with an SMP system can claim it's simple; it may be the simplest solution for a given problem, but that does not make it simple.
Second is the fact that most jobs everyone does every day with their computers does not need SMP. Further, to make matters much worse, the day to day tasks we use our computers for do not lend themselves to a SMP environment. Any analysis of what the typical user does with his/her computer will show that the task is most efficiently and reliably performed on a single core. This is why Intel, and now AMD, has included circuitry to essentially convert their SMP chips to single core. This is what allows XP's continued use successfully despite all the MS admonitions to upgrade; XP performs all the required tasks within the required time frame on a single core. This is why numerous benchmarks still show XP as outperforming Windows 7 for the vast majority of tasks performed by the home and business user.
If we, especially Microsoft, bothered to design and implement software based upon the need to solve user's problems (and not simply to sell more software and hardware) we could go a long way to perform our computing tasks with ease and efficiency (both human and power) with a great deal more security than we have now. Microsoft, as a monopoly, has given little thought to giving the end-user the best computing experience as per the end-user's needs. Intel, and AMD, with the advent of the SMP chip have given Microsoft and other software developers the ability wreak havoc. Think, why else is the "latest" CPU innovation the ability to cut back code execution from across multiple cores to a single core?
I am in lookout for an AMD notebook since last two weeks. Was surprised to see HP and Dell aren't offering AMD on any of their models now . Only Lenovo and Acer have some AMD offerings. Not sure about Dell but HP did have AMD models in Compaq series in the past. Its bad to see the two major PC makers unfairly promoting the bigger brand.
seems to me to be exactly the same mistake