IDF: Core i7 Will Feature A Turbo Mode

[xyster]

Intel has announced it will feature a Turbo Mode in its upcoming Core i7 processors

IDF: Core i7 Will Feature A Turbo Mode : Read more

 

[JonathanDeane]

I like it, I like it. As long as there are no technical teething pains this will be a great bit of kit

 

[JonathanDeane]

Sorry for the double post but a thought occurs to me!!! I know I know an unusual occurance.... They need to share this tech with ATI and Nvidia, I think they could about go fanless in 2D mode

 

[RoadKillGrill]

LOL a turbo mode, reminds me of the 386 days.

 

[onearmedscissorb]

Interesting idea for people who don't overclock, but much like SpeedStep, I imagine it will have to be shut off for overclocking. Most people would prefer to just run all the cores faster if they have to pick.

And if that's all it does when it shuts off THREE cores, then there's probably very little real world advantage to the type of person who would be using one of these processors. At the VERY least, they'll probably be playing newer games that would at least use two cores, but probably more, and people who actually need that kind of power to do something more serious may very well be utilizing all the cores at all times. Somehow, I don't think one of these processors needs a speed boost for Half Life 2 to begin with, much less web surfing.

 

[aevm]

Finally, no more threads like "Q6600 vs E8400". Excellent job, Intel

 

[shadowthor]

It is an interesting concept, if it truly works as good as it is mentioned in paper, there will be no reason to actually go to dual core nehalem and plus this will prevent the trolls from saying dual core is better for gaming. I wonder how overclocking will be, with the cores turning off when not in use.

 

[jaragon13]

[citation][nom]onearmedscissorb[/nom]Interesting idea for people who don't overclock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking , but much like SpeedStep, I imagine it will have to be shut off for overclocking. Most people would prefer to just run all the cores faster if they have to pick. And if that's all it does when it shuts off THREE cores, then there's probably very little real world advantage to the type of person who would be using one of these processors. At the VERY least, they'll probably be playing newer games that would at least use two cores, but probably more, and people who actually need that kind of power to do something more serious may very well be utilizing all the cores at all times. Somehow, I don't think one of these processors needs a speed boost for Half Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3 2 to begin with, much less web surfing.[/citation]
Why not.
I think 0 power going to cores when inactive is a brilliant idea.If you don't think that's a real world advantage to not use unused power,then I don't know what universe you are from.

 

[scorpio9gm]

First off over clocking is a win win for chip makers 1. it creates a cult following for their chips and gives people an avenue to learn more about their CPU and how it works and thus inspire the next generation of computer designers, engineers and technicians. 2. it allows users to squeeze a bit more performance out of their computer which is always good for the company. 3. Any time you can you reduce the 95 to 135 watt power draw that the processor is producing is a good thing, turning off cores when not needed and bumping up single threading performance is great. However for high end gamers this will probably be negligible due the the fact the most games and high end apps. such as 3DS Max, Maya, Photoshop, just to name a few are able to take advantage of multiple cores anyhow. Great so now when I fire up OpenOffice my computer will give it a boost. To me this just seems like a side note and I do not see this as some great leap in computer history. I'm more interested in Intel turning out a chip that I can dig into and get some real high end performance gains out of. This is 2008 and I'm past single threaded app. performance, if OpenOffice ran any quicker even I would not notice the difference. If Intel cripples over clocking for their i7 chips it would be a sad day for the over clocking community, and don't think for a minute that AMD would not step in to fill this gap. Intel is on top right now and on the right path I hope they don't lose there way and stray from the excellent work they have done and start giving us minor improvements for their next generation chips. This would be much more of an advantage for the Atom then performance for the i7, don't get me wrong this is a nice little enhancement for the i7, but for me and most high end users I would stress little. As a high end user I'm looking to Intel to give me a lot more then this.

Http://openfuelresource.com

 

[Guest]

Haha! I still have that pc case which had the turbo button. I'm not sure exactly what the button did, but the pc would run faster and you could enable "high" graphics in certain games (there was a football game at that time that had this ability). Those were the old DOS days tho, you can imagine 'graphics' from back then

 

[Guest]

Terrible news for overclockers. Who knows which core is on and off, which core is stable or not? Hard to stability test for us overclockers who are overclocking - and will intel give us a stability guarantee? even when it's self overclocked by two speed bins? sounds like they're selling them badged underclocked so it can do it!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Woot Dynamic OCing just like I thought.

 

[lopopo]

[citation][nom]haahaha[/nom]Terrible news for overclockers. Who knows which core is on and off, which core is stable or not? Hard to stability test for us overclockers who are overclocking - and will intel give us a stability guarantee? even when it's self overclocked by two speed bins? sounds like they're selling them badged underclocked so it can do it![/citation]
yea i hope they put options in the bios to turn this crap off/on

 

[modtech]

Singlethreaded? Once again I was tricked by the title. I gotta hand it to they staff at tom's, they know how to make a big headline out of nonissue.

 

[addiktion]

I think it's a good idea but like others I agree with turning it on/off. I personally prefer to have all my cores overclocked and running so even if 3 of them aren't in use they are available when I need them. Granted it would be a quick switch I'm sure from 1 to turning on all 4 but it's one less thing my CPU needs to do and one less possible problem with the cpu to begin with.

Again I think it's a good idea for those who aren't into managing their own CPU's but for me I'll stick to overclocking all 4 cores.

 

[stridervm]

Wierd, I think.... By the way Windows currently uses multiple cores, I think this will very much either cause :

- Negatively affect performance.
- Lots of BSODs.
- Will not work.

So how will that work? Windows already does try to divide the single applications performance between cores. Which means every core will be active. Wierd.

 

[JerryC]

Trust me when I tell you that MB manufacturers will allow you to disaable that option. So the age of over clocking isn't dead, it just means that people that don't understand will be better off.

 

[Jhonny]

Well, i think that in that particular case one must take into account that there are lots of programs running in background while someone is playing a game, most of that stuff is normally handled by other cores, so shutting then down is not going to help as much.

 

[ik_ool]

I think all future applications will be designed to benefit from multiple cores - 12 core processors in 2 years. Therefore, I think this feature is useless.

 

[Reynod]

This ideas is another one stolen from AMD.

 

[hawler]

The real question is why wouldn't this work for a double threaded-or even triple threaded application? If the app was running two threads could you turn the others ones off and give each of the 2 running cores a speed boost, though smaller then the boost one core would get? I can't see why this wouldn't be possible. And then it would actually end up being kind of useful, since many games are only going to have 2 threads for a while.

Also I too hope you can turn off the dynamic OCing of this chip for overclocking...but the 0 power to cores doing nothing needs to be able to stick around even with that feature turned off. Ideally actually would be the ability to OC your chip...and then have it OC a little more when only one core is being used...but I dont expect that

 

[gamerk316]

I think this is poinless. Even if you sit at your desktop all day, all the cores will get some work because you have Windows running 30-50 process in the background. In fact, moving all of those functions to one core might actually SLOW the system down...

If 2 cores were kept on, this would make more sense though. Still, if its proven to work...

 

[otheos]

Great stuff! Too bad Core i7 will cost an arm and a leg (why not, AMD is lagging so much behind).

 

[rodney_ws]

"archiving higher single threaded performance when that is all that is required"

I think you meant "achieving"

 

[Guest]

It sounds nice, but constant heating and cooling(shut down cores) on a single die don't sound too appetizing. Another thing if that game required one core to run, then what about the other threads such as the windows and behind the scene threads that keep the computer running or sound?