Does Turbo Boost really matter?

[Meaker]

Originally Posted by Dufus

lol, No need to insult your intelligence when you have done that already yourself I already explained it was run at a lower bclk.

You edited it after I posted, and why you circled incorrect information in that picture I don't know.

Either way you were overclocking at it was not the standard intel turbo so why you even bring that up is just nonsense.

Turbo for 655k is two bins above default to 3.46ghz (otherwise known as a pathetic boost) you then overclocked it beyond that with an unlocked multiplier.

Also who cares what the timing circuit can do when it has no effect on performance? No advantage or disadvantage to running the base clock higher or lower when you change all the multipliers (except maybe a less stable clock at lower frequencies).

So back to the original point, mobile turbo has a larger impact than desktop turbo. Of course K series CPUs can be overclocked, but that's obvious, though in the first page chart they were just looking at standard clocks.

[Dufus]

Originally Posted by Meaker

You edited it after I posted

It was already stated that a lower bclk was used before you replied but you went ahead and used the default bclk of 133MHz instead. The editing was done to supplement the reply with a post link and screen shot that was taken ~2 years ago and needed some digging to find it.

Originally Posted by Meaker

and why you circled incorrect information in that picture I don't know.

That was also explained but seems you did not read that either. To repeat, that particular screen shot was used to show Unclewebb author of RealTemp and Throttlestop that there was an error in bclk calculation with RealTemp.

Originally Posted by Meaker

Also who cares what the timing circuit can do when it has no effect on performance?

It was done to get a better understanding of the hardware. For instance similar testing with multipliers on the C2D lead me to the discovery of Dual-IDA. IDA being Intels first implementation of using an opportunistic frequency multiplier that was further developed into turbo boost 1.0 & 2.0.

Who cares about these things, not many it seems. At the time in 3 months only 2 people showed an interest in Dual-IDA whilst everybody else dismissed it or quoted Intel specification that only one core could used with IDA. One of those persons who took an interest was Unclewebb, nice guy.

I apologize if my content about turbo (k or non-k, any multi above the HFM is a turbo) is deemed unsuitable. I will not bother posting again.

[Charles P. Jefferies]

Yes, it does make a difference. I render video on my computer (1080p quality). Sometimes it takes up to 40 minutes on my i5 CPU to do so, depending on the length of the video.

I have the Turbo Boost meter running - it shows the CPU boosting from its normal 2.66GHz to 2.80-2.93GHz almost the entire time, on both cores. That's about 10% increase in speed so about 10% less time to render.

[tijo]

Some of you might argue that that's about 4 mins 30 secs saved in Charles case, but multiply that by a lot of videos or heavier workloads that would run for hours and the benefits are definitely there.

[Meaker]

It's just I can see the posts already:

"Why can't my CPU turbo to 5Ghz"

We need to keep the terms straight.

[GeoCake]

I do say, I rather enjoy my 76% overclock



Turbo is what Intel calls the overclock, right?
With no Turbo I would just be at a boring 2.5Ghz

I can adjust my turbo duration and power thanks to the XM chip.

[Meaker]

Turbo boost has restrictions of TDP/time on it, a straight up OC does not.

Intel guarantees turbo and it is part of the specifications.

[tijo]

That is probably as far as you can push it though, nice overclock by the way. Also, no Turbo boost is not what Intel calls overclock, they are two very similar things though.

Turbo does increase the clock speeds, but there is alimit to the turbo multipliers while overclocking is associated either with bclk clock speed modifications or unlocked multipliers. Unlocked multipliers is abit like turbo boost, but like i said, the turbo function is present on non unlocked Intel CPUs as well so it is better to differentiate them.

tl;dr

Turbo boost: small multiplier increase set by Intel that also remains within the CPU's TDP.
Multiplier overclocking: increasing the multipliers on an unlocked CPU to push it as high as possible and past the TDP listed by Intel. There is no way that your 2960xm stays within it's TDPof 45W att hose clock speeds. At stock turbo, it will stay at 45W of heat dissipated most of the time.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by Meaker, although i should add that the time restriction is there only on Sandy Bridge CPUs if you start going over the TDP, as long as you're under or at the TDP you will stay at max turbo, the turbo will decrease shortly after you go over the TDP. On first gen core i CPUs (arrandale and clarksfield), the turbo will go down immediately after going over TDP.

[GeoCake]

I'd say turbo is just a fancy name for an overclock. The QM chips' overclock ratios/tdp/durations are limited and locked by Intel.

I could unlock my 2860QM TDP thanks to Intel XTU and an unlocked BIOS letting it turbo forever.

Overclocking the BCLK is just another form of overclock, and that affects other parts of your system like the RAM.

[tijo]

Yes, in a sense turbo is a fancy name for an overclock, but i still feel that the line has to be drawn between a full fledged overclock be it by BCLK or unlocked multis and TB since TB is advertised as a feature on non unlocked CPUs as well. Since SNB CPUs can't be overclocked via BCLK, that makes the distinction even more important.