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."

Comments

Re:A better explanation

[Vellmont]

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.

I'd say games qualify for "little uses". Believe it or not, most people don't use their computers for high end gaming.

Even for games, are you really certain that the extra cores are used much? Sure, the game can say it uses multiple cores, and I'm sure it actually does. But how much does it really improve performance?

The PS3 has a weak CPU attached to 7 powerful SPUs.

Heh. The PS3 is known to be notoriously difficult to program as well. How many tasks can really be split up into 7 relatively equal, independent parts?