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."
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.
This seems like another marketing trick. I bet all the cores could easily run at the "super turbo boost" clock rates with an average heatsink and fan...
What's "apparent performance"? It's either faster or it's not.
Yes, one can force SpeedStep setting - but the game would still be consuming all available power, preventing the CPU from going to pseudo sleep states (which is even more effective)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Really? I always thought that going to a lower voltage mode was much more effective than C1/C2/C3. That's why SpeedSted is used, against normal CPU throttling.
But perhaps not without exceeding the amperage value for which power lines are rated...
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
They like to use cache size to segment markets (people that really need it end up paying for it).
Also, I imagine that they ran the numbers on increased cache size versus another core (but maybe they figured the second core was more marketable, rather than a better performance boost).
I do however, have this wishy-washy impression that Intel has been selling Pentium Pros with ever larger caches and ever lower voltages for the last 10 years (I'm quite certain that the Pentium III was mostly a smaller, faster Pentium Pro; The II and IV were not. I think Core was, except for there being 2 of them.). Somebody please either lambaste this or tell me it isn't that far off.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
> I've also been wondering why, given the new poly-core systems, we
> don't see a mix of CPU types in a system.
How would the OS decide which process to assign to which core?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
For $300 you can get a brand new Dell - who builds a PC anymore?
Someone who wants something better than a $300 Dell?
I'd say games qualify for "little uses". Believe it or not, most people don't use their computers for high end gaming.
Afaict most people don't use their computers for anything that strains the CPU at all. Most people would be perfectly happy with a bottom of the range C2D, i3, late P4 or maybe even less as long as the system was kept free of crapware and had enough ram for their OS and applications of choice.
However of those apps that DO strain the CPU (e.g. games, video encoding, scientific software, software build systems) a lot do now have the ability to use multiple cores.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
L1 and sometimes L2 caches are small not because of die area but because there is a tradeoff between cache size and cache speed. Only the lowest level cache (L3 on the i series) takes significant chip area (and it already takes a pretty large proportion on both the quad and hex core chips).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register