Question Adaptive Boost Technology?

[punkncat]

Anyone have any thoughts and comments on it?

I have been playing around with a 11900K and find I am having far better luck with a turbo boost modifier than to use the Adaptive Boost thing. Any time I even enable it the system fans are pretty much staying pegged. If I do a +3 on the turbo modifier it doesn't do said with the fan curves.

My experience so far is that even with that on, running Cinebench and so forth runs temps up so quickly that throttling is causing the score to be lower. I have a 240 AIO and apparently it just isn't enough.
Running "disabled" which is the default, results in a max turbo clock of 4.8 instead of the advertised "up to 5.3" and temps are well controlled. In the per core settings I can see several of them are set to 5.3, 5.1 and so on but the system isn't running past the 4.8 in any situation.

That is some more bit of bait and switch IMO. I wonder if the 11700K is a similar situation regarding boost? It doesn't have the Adaptive technology thing. This wasn't something obviously stated in the marketing.

 

[mdd1963]

As the CPU heating beast of CB-R23 uses AVX, certainly a sustained loading under the default spec'd all core turbo of 5 GHz might overwhelm some cooling units' capacity...; a negative AVX offset of 2-3 (200-300 MHz lower clockspeeds) indeed might keep clocks lower. (This would be easy to implement via Intel's XTU, in addition to specifying lower overall boost speeds under various cores' activity schemes. Unless you are playing with single core testing schemes, the 5.3 GHz single core boost should rarely be seen by most users.)

 

[Colif]

Anandtech got 2 at 5.3 but they have a 360 AIO - https://www.anandtech.com/show/1685...t-lake-four-core-i911900k-binned-and-analyzed

 

[punkncat]

^ I have not attempted an OC that was "all core at X" to anything above 4.9 but the modifier which brings each core up +# of its set speed. IE, there is a listing that comes up in BIOS to show the favored cores and such down to the slowest.

In practice I am not actually seeing the system boost beyond 5.2 for anything aside from a short while as temps skyrocket up to mid 90-100 and then it just throttles back down to around 4.7-4.8 anyway. IIRC (would have to boot back to BIOS to look) but the auto voltage is running something just over 1.1V and during this boost is setting at 1.4V? ( I think I am recalling that correctly)

There are two settings for the enable of the adaptive boost, one of which is adaptive 200-something W and the system will sometimes load, but mostly results in a boot back to BIOS hit F1/F2 message.

Z590I Unify FYI

 

[punkncat]

Anandtech got 2 at 5.3 but they have a 360 AIO - https://www.anandtech.com/show/1685...t-lake-four-core-i911900k-binned-and-analyzed

Yes, I came across that article last night while messing around and heard "test tone" about halfway through. I do see they are utilizing a much stronger cooling solution than I am. Don't really think I am going to go that route at this time. Probably going to leave it at or close to stock and run with it.

 

[dwd999]

Anyone have any thoughts and comments on it?

I have been playing around with a 11900K and find I am having far better luck with a turbo boost modifier than to use the Adaptive Boost thing. Any time I even enable it the system fans are pretty much staying pegged. If I do a +3 on the turbo modifier it doesn't do said with the fan curves.

My experience so far is that even with that on, running Cinebench and so forth runs temps up so quickly that throttling is causing the score to be lower. I have a 240 AIO and apparently it just isn't enough.
Running "disabled" which is the default, results in a max turbo clock of 4.8 instead of the advertised "up to 5.3" and temps are well controlled. In the per core settings I can see several of them are set to 5.3, 5.1 and so on but the system isn't running past the 4.8 in any situation.

That is some more bit of bait and switch IMO. I wonder if the 11700K is a similar situation regarding boost? It doesn't have the Adaptive technology thing. This wasn't something obviously stated in the marketing.

With most systems you're looking at a 4 to 6 percent boost. Whether or not that's important depends on your view and use of the system. For gamers who obsess over frame rates its a big deal. For other users, who might be editing and exporting/encoding videos, is it a big deal if it takes 1 minute 53 seconds instead of 2 minutes, probably not. For those of us who don't want to deal with the extra cooling then Turbo speed is fine, that's what I have mine set at. However its not really a bait and switch since they're not making any real promises if you use it. Intel just gives the cpu specs for standard and Turbo speed. The motherboard manufacturers are usually really vague about speeds and there are really no guarantees, just a lot of phrases including the words "up to".

 

[punkncat]

With most systems you're looking at a 4 to 6 percent boost. Whether or not that's important depends on your view and use of the system. For gamers who obsess over frame rates its a big deal. For other users, who might be editing and exporting/encoding videos, is it a big deal if it takes 1 minute 53 seconds instead of 2 minutes, probably not. For those of us who don't want to deal with the extra cooling then Turbo speed is fine, that's what I have mine set at. However its not really a bait and switch since they're not making any real promises if you use it. Intel just gives the cpu specs for standard and Turbo speed. The motherboard manufacturers are usually really vague about speeds and there are really no guarantees, just a lot of phrases including the words "up to".

IDK. In my own perception of it, they should say something like "up to 5.3 using our adaptive boost technology" or similar. The way all the marketing indicates is that you should expect over 5 performance out of the box with no intervention. The 11600K I used in this same board performed at and above it's rated performance without my having to do anything. Understanding that there is a significant power draw difference between the two (and also why I paid what I did for a high quality motherboard with strong VRM).

At that same time though, and as pointed out above, I am sure they didn't have a run of the mill AIO entered as part of the equation either. I know the marketing for the motherboard itself pretty much spelled out that it was designed with high end water cooling in mind, and a good portion of why they designed it with a supplemental VRM/'fet" fan.

It isn't so much that I am upset regarding it. I got a stellar deal on this CPU, probably wouldn't have purchased it otherwise, and it does a fantastic job for the VM use that I opted to go this route for.