Talk:Intel Turbo Boost

Introduction section

In the intro section, I "fixed" (broke) the link from the term "active cores", to a place where the term can be defined. It was set to point to an article on "Multiple-Core architectures in general, but nowhere on that page was the term 'active core' explained or defined. How is a core Active or not? (i.e. does that mean simply *running* the IDLE instruction, or does it mean some powered down state? How is the term ""active"", defined? Does it have to be in a special state? Is it dynamically defined by the processor based on load? Or does the user have to configure the processor with fewer cores before boot?, or can it be defined (on/off, or active/inactive), while an OS is running? (OS agnostic, -- i.e. how is it defined for the chip and what does the chip support?)

I don't know the answer to the above, or I'd have written the answer, BUT, having 'active cores' point to an article about how and why multi-core processes came to be, is a waste of the reader's time (I already knew everything in that target article), but it didn't define 'active cores'.

Alternatively, one could just use the 'jargon' "active cores", and not define it (and require no link). But if it is going to have a link on it (and I think it should), it should point to a definition somewhere, not a page about historical multicore development.

Athena (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example section

What does the cryptic notation and numbers mean??! --84.47.117.130 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the example section is nearly unreadable as is --24.60.237.127 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified it down to one example. We can't put them all on here, there are new ones every month. Anyone who wants to know about a specific chip can refer to Intel's published documents on their website. Number774 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this "turbo boost" just another name for Intel's SpeedStep technology? It sounds awfully similar. 69.248.250.7 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It does change the frequency and voltage to the processor dynamically, so from the motherboard's point of view it is the same. However SpeedStep speeds are controlled by selecting individual P-states accessible through ACPI. Turbo Boost is activated by requesting a P-state with a higher multiplier than the stock frequency and there is a small processor on the i7 that monitors power usage and how many cores are in a high C-state (asleep) and controls the speed and voltage itself. Also, why is this question in the Example section? 128.95.196.120 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the page's name be changed?

Not sure it should be changed. By the time you get AMD there, Intel already introduced the 2nd generation having the dynamic Turbo which is not available on AMD products. Keeping them seperately, would be the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erotem (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that AMD's Turbo Core technology is fundamentally similar to Intel's Turbo Boost, I propose changing the page title to something a brand-neutral name that can refer to both technologies. I'm not sure what would be a good title; maybe something like "Dynamic CPU speed adjustment"? Either that, or Turbo Core should get its own page. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather mention both in Overclocking and create a new page for AMDs Turbo Core

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Overclocking is the right place to talk about these, since the manufacturer has specified the processor to run that fast. In the example, that IS a 3.2GHz processor by specification; each core is guaranteed to run at that speed. It's only when running with more cores that it downclocks (and reduces its voltage) to stay within a sane thermal and current envelope. 128.95.196.120 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it's not traditional overclocking per se, but it is a derivative of it. I think it's good to see in the example in the article: The Core i7-920XM runs at 2GHz default clock. If it wouldn't be some kind of overclocking why is there no indication that it will go up to 2,26GHz on full load? Why writing 2GHz instead of 2,26GHz. Moreover the artcile says "Most refer to this concept as "dynamic overclocking"". So a small note in the article about overclocking would fit even it is not a hand-made overclock

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should add the dynamic turbo

Intel has recently introduced 2nd generation in the IDF on the new Sandy Bridge. Need to add it to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erotem (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

I've found on Intel's website that old Pentium Pro processors have Turbo Boost Technology. I wonder if that's a mistake, is it the same thing as described here, and should there be info about that in History section of Wiki page... I don't have enough knowledge to rewrite that section myself, so I'm just pointing out the facts I've found. Tnx! here's the link to Pentium Pro page: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49951&processor=&spec-codes=

--109.106.243.69 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was also named Turbo Boost, or at least Turbo. I only remember that it didn't really do anything, so we left the button pushed in so it was lit up, and hope sprang eternal that maybe it might have some effect.

Best luck, Nei1 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

It was written:

> When the user's workload demands additional performance and the processor has not yet reached its limits, the processor clock will dynamically increase frequency in short and regular.

Should that be "... short and regular steps?" "... bursts?" "...spasms?"

Thanks. Nei1 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example Section: 3 active cores

From the article:

For Core i7-2920XM.
The normal operating frequency is 2.5 GHz. Turbo is indicated as: 7/8/9/10 in which the
first number is the multiple of 100 MHz supported when four cores are active, the second
number is the multiple for three cores, the third number is for two cores, and the fourth
number is for one active core.

However, the chart underneath implies that those numbers should be 7/7/9/10, as there are no sepparate modes for 3 and 4 active cores. Does anyone know an explanation for that? Makrom (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]