News Gigabyte says its 'revolutionary' Ultra Turbo Mode can boost frame rates by 35% — BIOS level enhancement exclusive to Intel Z890 motherboards

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
aed9c78c0b01f95f895d97e0013906d2c47852ad.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: dev1, jkflipflop98, Why_Me and 2 others
Admin said:
The new BIOS feature offers three levels of performance tuning, surpassing Intel’s standard 200S Boost profile in both CPU and memory optimization

Gigabyte says its 'revolutionary' Ultra Turbo Mode can boost frame rates by 35% — BIOS level enhancement exclusive to Intel Z890 motherboards : Read more
Click to expand...
Like seriously....this is the kind of stuff that caused intel CPUs to fail, it's your duty as "the press" to at least tell people that this will void their warranty and might make their systems unstable.
Don't just pretend that this is just some setting that can be used without any concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianbalgas, charca, rluker5 and 1 other person
spongiemaster said:
Ironically, the turbo button on old PC's didn't speed them up. It slowed them down for software that tied timing to the clock and ran too fast on newer systems.
Click to expand...
It's a toggle switch, it did both.
It toggled between the standard at the time PC speed and whatever the normal/actual speed of the CPU was, it's the same difference either way you explain it.
It either sped the CPU up from standard speed up to turbo speed or slowed it down from the non standard turbo speed down to standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianbalgas
TerryLaze said:
Like seriously....this is the kind of stuff that caused intel CPUs to fail, it's your duty as "the press" to at least tell people that this will void their warranty and might make their systems unstable.
Don't just pretend that this is just some setting that can be used without any concern.
Click to expand...
Just the "default" mismanagement of load line calibration was enough to do some damage. Things like turbo and MCE were much quicker to show the undesirable side effects of overvolting.

I do have a morbid curiosity of just how bad the volts can get with the ultra turbo mode, and if they will be half hidden.
 
rluker5 said:
Just the "default" mismanagement of load line calibration was enough to do some damage. Things like turbo and MCE were much quicker to show the undesirable side effects of overvolting.

I do have a morbid curiosity of just how bad the volts can get with the ultra turbo mode, and if they will be half hidden.
Click to expand...
This is a very long discussion but, if people were forced to do their own overclocking instead of just pressing a button, and most of the times not even doing anything, not even wanting to have overclocking but overclocking just being applied automatically, then people would never have gotten their systems close enough to the edge for the bug to cause any issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
Honestly I don't think this sort of PR deserves a place on a tech site that does CPU reviews unless you're going to test it and inform the readers what exactly it does rather than what they're claiming.

They could be blasting voltage to get extra clocks (this has limited return on ARL period), but they could also be using more advanced algorithms which optimize voltages across the cores based on each individual core's characteristics. ARL seems to have extremely limited clock scaling so I wouldn't expect much out of a 285K with this no matter what, but it's possible they could get a decent boost out of 245K/265K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianbalgas and bit_user
TerryLaze said:
It's a toggle switch, it did both.
It toggled between the standard at the time PC speed and whatever the normal/actual speed of the CPU was, it's the same difference either way you explain it.
It either sped the CPU up from standard speed up to turbo speed or slowed it down from the non standard turbo speed down to standard.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it worked. The system was designed to run at the higher speed. Not like boost clocks today, it was supposed to run at that speed all the time. The higher speed was what the system was advertised as being. The lower speed was typically a manually tuned handicap to make the system run like whatever slower system they were targeting. It was literally a compatibility mode. It also wasn't a simple clock adjustment, which was difficult back then so if your PC had one of those simple led displays that showed the clock speed, the higher speed was accurate, the lower speed was a made up number the system builder told the display to show.
 
spongiemaster said:
No, that's not how it worked. The system was designed to run at the higher speed. Not like boost clocks today, it was supposed to run at that speed all the time. The higher speed was what the system was advertised as being.
Click to expand...
Yes sure, but the lower clock was the worldwide standard, that's why you had games that wouldn't run correctly, that's why they had the button, to conform with the standard.

They used faster CPUs to make (ibm) PC-compatible PCs so they had to adapt them to the slow speed, the turbo allowed them to still run faster whenever they didn't need compatibility.
 
Again? Are not modern CPU stressed from factory?
Another 13th and 14th gen debacle in the making, guaranteed!
Will intel speak out ? Has not the lesson sunk in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom