• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Turbo Boost thread!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
I found this to be a very interesting topic for us Turbo Boost nuts. I'm thinking many of us may use it or not. Is it a gimmick or is it a tool that really makes your CPU better?

Isn't this feature just a recipe for inconsistant performance? What happens if you have a dual core app running, and then the CPU reaches it's Turbo Boost temp threshold and throttles down the cores? Do you suddenly loose performance?

You couldn't benchmark with this kind of feature enabled, could you?
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
AFAIK, it only changes the multiplier....to raise your clocks. But thats about all I understand. I can say though I never heard anything about inconsistent performance...your temps shouldnt be out of line for it to throttle in the first place so although that is likely true, it shouldnt be happening anyway.

But since I am not an owner, Im not entirely sure I should have answered... so at this point Im going to enjoy the thread and learn. :)
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
I am not impressed by it, but maybe its just my particular processor.

I consistenly score better with my 4.2 Non-turbo (which btw i am getting tired of specifying) than I do with 180 Bclk in TurboBoost mode.

I lost almost 4000 pts. in 3DMark06 and about 6000pts in 05.

Super Pi does not finish faster, its about on par with a 4.0GHz Overclock.

Cinebench shows better single processor score with Turbo Boost and a better multiple processor score with NTB.

The only real benefit I have noticed is the temperatures will idle down to 28 degrees, but thats not because of turbo boost, that is because you have to enable the power saving functions in order to get Turbo Boost. You have to disable them to get an overclock over 3.8.

It really is a tradeoff, but I notice no reason to use TB if your really into overclocking. I understand Sam's POV, since he is a tweeker and likes to get every little ounce of performance while shedding volts and heat. But realistically, if your an overclocking power user, then TB will probably not be for you.
 

Ha-Nocri

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
TB should definitely stay on b/c most things a casual user (majority of us) do is not multi-threaded...
 

stainlineho

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
I think if you know what you are doing you will not want to use TurboBoost or TurboEVO or whatever that GUI utility is. I did not care for the utility AT ALL.

I did get a nice 3.71Ghz OC with Turbo Boost, but I prefer manual settings. For those who don't know much about OC'ing and don't feel like researching, Turbo Boost is a safe, efficient option to get a nice OC out of a system.

Its all in the end user.
 

turbohans

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Location
n43, w86
LOL! :beer: I need to get on the i7 bandwaggon,, keep seeing all these threads talking about my favorite subject. Then I can use jargon like "yea, my pc is hitting some serious turbo boost" :beer: hahahaha!
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
While I would like to say that I don't do a lot of multi threading either, my SLI set-up does. If your CPU is the bottleneck, then by only having a 4 core at 3.6 during use vs. a 4 core at 4.2 you will see better results.

I also believe that perhaps this should be split up into three choices rather than two so that people don't associate Turbo Boost with cooling and power benefits.

You can actually turn off Turbo boost and just turn on the power saving functions, this will allow you to overclock old school. While your overclock might not be as high as it would be with them turned off, it will be higher than with Turbo Turned on. The real difference is in that boost you get now and again.

I can get 4.2 with TB turned off and all power saving options turned off.
I can get 4.0 with TB turned off and all power saving options turned on.
I can get 3.6 with TB turned on and all power saving options turned on.
I can not get TB with all power saving options turned off.

On Benchmarks:

NTB > TB on Multiple threaded apps, to include Graphic Card intensive setups.

NTB > TB on prolonged CPU intensive tasks like Folding.

TB > NTB on single threaded tasks such as internet browsing however there is a certain Turbo Lag while programs are loading up.

Temps w/o Power saving options are about 40-42 @idle 80 @ load (Keep in mind it is a much higher overclock)

Temps with Power saving options are 28-30 @idle 75 @load (Lower Overclock.
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
First of all, most average users don't overclock. I read the percentage of overclockers is like 4%! That's not very much.

So for the average user they would be very happy with Turbo and HT I'm sure.
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Oh definitely, but since you posed this question on the OCforums, I assumed you wanted an opinion from an overclockers point of view.

By all rights, this TB tech. gives the average user a faster computer, but if that is what Intel's goal was, then why not just give them a faster Chip, they could have done away with Turbo Boost, and given everyone a chip that was preset from the factory with 4.0GHz, then locked down the multipliers and bclk.

To me its just another Intel gimmick. Intel knows that their chips can easily withstand max overclocking for a period long enough for the end user to be upgrading to a new computer before their chip ever eats dirt.

Since they can no longer tout higher clock speeds because both Intel and AMD can hit 4.0, and they can also not claim the Core Throne (Six Cores at both Intel and AMD) they had to come up with another selling gimmick. Hence turbo boost. I remember back in the 486 days you could use the turbo button which overclocked your chip by like 33MHz. It never caught on. So here we are in 2010 reliving the days of Turbo Boost and Pentium 4 HT technology put into a i7 920. Yes, this technology is better than none, but "for the average user" a C2D is more computing power then they will ever need for the foreseeable future.

Mention i3/5/7 to most people you meet and they will say HUH?

Most people can't tell the difference between Quad Core and Dual Core.

80% of the people I work with don't have better than a Pentium 4.

15% of them don't even use computers.
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
It's up to us to share the overclocking experience with our community and whoever wants to listen to us. Lol!

TB gives your average user a very fast PC, laptop or netbook. Single core days are gone and behind us. Every user now a days is equipped with two cores or more!

The average user wants a PC that can go fast and that's it! And most of them need to be told please keep your updates up to par. Most don't! I know this because most of the PC's I work on is a virus issue much more then an equipment issue. It's nuts.

Back to the topic of TB. It works like it suppose to. Idles the cores temps down when they aren't working. Throttles them up when needed.

In reality when I have my rig set up to 3.8GHz without TB I do see some difference but not very much. For my everyday usage I do enjoy TB. Just my .02 cents. :)
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
I agree with you that its up to us to share with our community.

I also agree that TB gives the average user a much faster PC. I do not however agree that single core days are behind us. Don't forget that most people pass down their old computers. There are still tons of Pentium 4s, Celerons and Semprons/Athlons on there not nearly ready for retirement.

I also agree that most users biggest problems is Virus resolution. I spend more issues correcting virus issues than I ever spend building a new computer. Most people just either can't afford or don't think its worth upgrading until they spend time on a fast computer and realize just how slow theirs is. My GF tells me she hates going home to use her computer or get on her laptop because mine is just so much faster.

And again back to topic TB. The difference is minimal and probably not even discernible to the average computer user, but in terms of speed there is little doubt that TB is not as fast as good ol' fashioned Overclocking. But be sure Intel is probably working on that.
 

Ha-Nocri

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
The whole point about TB is to keep CPUs thermals intact and still speed up by shutting down unused cores. Much was spent in that technology's research process. If they make a CPU at 3.2GHz it would be rated at 125W (I am guessing here, but u get the point), but if u disable 2 of 4 cores and boost them to 3.2GHz u have a dual-core with the same TDP of 90W, but better performance.
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
So your saying that by disabling the cores you get better power savings?

If that is your goal, then why not just get a higher clocked Dual Core? As a matter of fact, Dual Cores in general can be Clocked very high with less heat dissipation in general.

I am all for new tech because it supports research for newer tech, but when I see performance gains of 5% but you have to buy a whole new system to get it, then I don't see the point. Fortunately, that is not the case with the i Series. But I will be the first to say.... don't sell your old Quad Core just to get an i-Series. I did that and while I can see a performance increase in Benchmarks, for real world use I don't see it as much. As a matter of fact, to get a real feel of the benefits, I would have to hang a Kill-o-watt off my computer before I sold my Q6600 and compare it to my i5 and do a cost analysis. I would be willing to say that the i5 overclock negated any real benefits in power savings but did increase my benchmark performance by about 30%.

But I would be willing to bet, that if I put 3 looking Computers side by side with a Dual Core, Quad Core and i7 in them, there are very few people that could notice the difference.

Sorry to get off topic: This is about Turbo Boost Technology. It is better to have it then to not have it.
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
There's also the issue of background threads running in the OS. Although your foreground app may only use a single thread, there are usually dozens (if not hundreds) of active threads on your system at any time. Just a few of those being scheduled on sleeping cores will wake them up and limit your max turbo frequency (Windows 7 is allegedly better at not doing this). - Anadtech Article.

This was kinda the direction I am going. Right now, there is limited use of multiple cores, but thanks to this new technology, that is likely to change, much faster now that software manufactures will have to explain why they are only making use of 1 or 2 out of 8 cores. That being said, in the old days I had one or two apps running in the background, now I have at least 10 just on my System Toolbar. If they deactivate my Turbo Boost, then am I better off turning it off?
 
OP
wickedout

wickedout

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Turbo works ok for me. I have my BCLK set 165 and if I go any higher it raises my Vcore to like 1.41 or higher. I'm comfortable with my current settings.
 

SamSaveMax

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Turbo works ok for me. I have my BCLK set 165 and if I go any higher it raises my Vcore to like 1.41 or higher. I'm comfortable with my current settings.

Well, I'm almost finish testing head to head 182bclk Turbo VS non-Turbo 4.2GHz.....using:
3DMark06
3DMarkVantage
CinebenchR10
GeekBench
wPrime32M
SuperPI_32M
IBT_10loops_CUSTOM_1024MB

Most of those are HIGHLY THREADED apps....so it won't show as much advantages to Turbo mode.
Virus scan, ConvertXtoDVD, Winrar... pretty quick with Turbo
My gain and lost isn't that much.....and I'm happy with its Turbo cool and quietness.

BTW, I can hit that F12 button to load 4.52GHz mode saved in bios for serious burn at anytime. Otherwise, for everyday use....Turbo is me. :rock:

I'll upload those pixies tomorrow.
 

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
I just thought I would add, I ended up with kind of a happy medium. I am running stable at 4.1 with 1.4V (for me this is good) with all power saving functions enabled. This allows my computer to run quiet. With very low temps. I think I found my spot, I am glad to hear turbo works out well for both of you. I think maybe if my chip were a little stronger, then I could be running like you Sam at 187 Bclk for a normal operation of 3.9, but unfortunately for me, my chip is not strong enough. :( The best I can manage is 173.