Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Turbo Boost vs. AMD Turbo Core Explained

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the highly-pressurized-gas dept.

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."

7 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Huh? by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The damn thing could (and should) have been two-paragraph memo - reads like it's written by a high school kid trying to fill up page quota. Oh well - the info, as shallow as it is, still is something I didn't know before.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  2. "Apparent performance" by macshome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's "apparent performance"? It's either faster or it's not.

    1. Re:"Apparent performance" by asdf7890 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's "apparent performance"? It's either faster or it's not.

      You have obviously never worked in UI design! (though in this area I don't know who/what they would be trying to fool or how they would be trying to fool them/it so your response is probably quite right)

    2. Re:"Apparent performance" by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many programs simply do not benefit from multiple cores. This technology is basically a trade off between partially disabling one core and increasing the frequency of the other core.

  3. Re:Why? by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it's a pain in the ass and very hard for most coders.

    What we need is either a simple library for threading or a new language (like haskell) for auto-parallelization

  4. Re:"Your next build" - who builds PCs anymore? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For $300 you can get a brand new Dell - who builds a PC anymore?

    Someone who wants something better than a $300 Dell?