Conclusion
We can only recommend that AMD and Intel continue implementing and developing their Turbo-oriented features. Both do their job in increasing performance. Since the two approaches are different, though, we found that their outcomes in real life are different, as well.
Let’s start with Intel. The six-core, 3.2 GHz Core i7-980X speeds up a single core by 266 MHz if a single-threaded application wants maximum performance, and it can accelerate all six cores by 133 MHz if thermal headroom allows. This is the main difference compared to AMD’s solution, because Intel's Gulftown design can accelerate single-threaded apps, as well as high-end applications. From a multi-core processing standpoint, Turbo Boost makes more sense than Turbo CORE, since all types of workload benefit when compared to nominal clock speed.
AMD’s Turbo CORE only knows one acceleration mode. It increases clock speed for three cores by up to 400 MHz in the case of the Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz six-core. This means that all applications that utilize no more than three cores experience immediate acceleration. In this case, we found that AMD's performance improvement is higher, as a 400 MHz upgrade is much more noticeable than Intel’s 133/266 MHz speed bump. The downside is nonexistent acceleration if four to six cores are being taxed.
Neither solution is a clear winner. Intel is better for extremely performance-hungry, multi-threaded environments, while AMD's approach provides more benefits for less-threaded environments. The best Turbo technology would be a more granular one, and a perfect Turbo mode would accelerate a single core by even more than AMD’s 400 MHz, two cores by around 400 MHz, three and four cores by less, and all cores by as much as the remaining thermal envelope allows.
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
Nice article, good to see two different approaches almost on par, tho i think in the long run, amd's will be the more flexible with advanced users able to tweak the clocks and cores to specific needs. If intel continues its new trend with sandy bridge (all-in-one base clock) and amd continue with its policy of not cutting features on lower models, then amd's platforms could easily become the undisputed tweakers choice.
In their current form, neither are really exciting.
For starters, a small increase like 133 or 266MHz can easily be achieved by increasing base clock, even without raising core voltage. You don't need to be a skilled overclocker to type a number...
Who really needs such a minor boost? Those in search of more processing power will want more than such an incremental increase (aka serious overclocking), while for most people, like gamers or people using their pc for office apps, overclocking simply isn't needed.
Turbo, both in AMD and Intel version, are a minor feature that really isn't a valuable addition. It's there and doesn't do anything wrong, but it's hardly a useful feature.
So, six has stopped being an even number...
Umm no. The 980 improves by 38 seconds (3.2%) whereas the 1090T improves by 1:13 (4.6%).
The fact that the AMD system's power consumption (without Turbo CORE) is less than the similarly clocked 32nm Intel platform (without Turbo Boost) is quite interesting; perhaps the 12MB L3 cache is to blame.
Interesting indeed.
I however will not be able to benefit from this I expect. I recently bought one of the AMD 6 core chips as a pre-overclocked bundle with board and ram. Mine runs reliably a 4.0 Giga Hz with a monster air only cooling system. I won't name the UK company who supplied it but they specialise in overclocking solutions in the products they offer.
Since cooling is an issue I would expect the setup I now have will never try to use this feature.
On the power front I will of course be using far more than I may need all the time but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make ;-)
What the hell is going on here? Please Tom's, do something about these advertisers or I'll go nuts...
Turbo Core should actually boost four cores instead of three for AMD hexa-core CPU's because a lot of applications are optimized for quad cores.