i3 and i5: Turbo boost useless on i5??

[Liam m]

Hi

I have a little question regarding the i5 and i3 lineup from intel. Doesn't matter which gen.
I currently have the i5 6600 ( non K at 3.3ghz, turbo to 3.9 if one core is used, I think to 3.6 if 4 cores are used?). I also see the i3 6300 runs at 3.8ghz without turbo boost.
I was wondering: why do the i5's even have turbo boost and i3 not, if the i3 has a higher base clock?
In other words: what's the point of calling it turbo boost on i5 processor if the frequency is lower than an i3 cpu (when 4 cores active)...
Is this pure marketing to mislead people?
Could intel also sell their i3 6300 as "3.2ghz, up to 3.8ghz turbo boost frequency"? Or am I missing something here?

ps: I know turbo boost can only be used when power draw etc are not too high... And I also know the basic differences between i3-i5-i7 cpu's...

Thanks

 

[rgd1101]

not really, it just the tdp the cpu are design for.

 

[TJ Hooker]

And yet, I do have to ask, according to your answer, why is Intel running two wafer dies? It doesn't make sense. All they would have to do is disable 2 cores, HT, etc..... on the I3, Celeron, and Pentiums, to get the processors they want. And there has been multiple times that Intel has shown that they do exactly that. Why would they change it?

Well, one possible to have different dies is that a die designed for dual cores could be smaller, thus increasing the number of dies per wafer, thereby reducing cost per chip. Assuming a) you have good yields on your quad core chips, so there's not many that need to be cut down to dual core; and b) you have enough sales volume for the reduction in cost per chip is enough to offset the extra cost in designing a different die, and any other logistics associated with fabbing two different dies.

I'm no expert, and I don't know if this is the case. Just one possible explanation.

 

[Liam m]

Okay so my question is solved. Thank you all for the answers ! Unfortunately I can only pick one answer as best solution.