Overclock vs Turbo boost?
Overclock vs Turbo boost?
how does intel's trubo boost work really? for example, i7 6700 has a base clock of 3.4 GHz,and a boost of 4.0GHz.
Does it mean when at stress (e.g- gaming load) that i7 is guaranteed to work at 4.0ghz? or does it mean, that the cpu can reach 4.0ghz only when, there are a few free cores with little/no workload.
if the later is true, then it makes sense to Overclock one's cpu within the limit of T boost, otherwise it doesnt. On the other hand, Overclocks will only be effective when done beyond the intel's T boost range,if the former is true.
This is important for me, coz im confused between buying an i7 6700 and i5 6600k. Its 2016, ill not buy a cpu thats clocked inder 3.6ghz.A guranteed 4ghz is however a lot more acceptable!
TIA for ur input on this.
Turbo can increase the clock speed of a few cores when the rest of the processor isn’t under pressure. For gaming chips you’re looking at, the i5-6600K with an overclock seems ideal. Most games won’t demand more than 2-3 cores, so the hyperthreads on the i7-6700K won’t be heavily utilized. If you prefer not to overclock, the stock clock of the i7-6700K is 4.0 with a turbo of 4.2—still quite good for most titles. You can adjust it to similar limits.
Some percentages for overclocking at a reasonable 1.40v Vcore:
I5-6600K – 4.8 38%
I7-6700K – 4.8 18%
I7-6700K – 4.7 56%
I7-6700K – 4.6 87%
I5-6600K – 4.5 100%
The 14nm skylake chip doesn’t require special cooling for overclocking. It depends on the quality of your...
Turbo Boost (or AMD Turbo Core) activates when needed, but strictly according to the thermal limits set for the CPU. Sensors tracking power usage and temperatures send data to the chip, which then decides how long the turbo speed can last. This means turbo features are intended only for brief periods ("race to sleep" as they're called).
Turbo Boost only increases a few of the available cores (4) to that maximum speed, specifically during brief periods of high demand. The scenario you describe—processing at 4 ghz under heavy load—is not accurate. Regarding the mention of GHz, it’s just a reference point for comparison; a lower GHz processor will always outperform a higher one in everyday use. If we focused solely on GHz, many would prefer AMD 9590 models that run near 5 GHz, regardless of their actual performance. Gaming-wise, an i5 is sufficient, and your strict focus on GHz limits your choice more than it should.
Turbo can increase the clock speed of a few cores when other parts aren’t under heavy load. For gaming chips you’re looking at, the i5-6600K with an overclock seems ideal. Most games won’t demand more than 2-3 cores, so the hyperthreads on the i7-6700K won’t be heavily utilized. If you prefer not to overclock, the stock clock of the i7-6700K is 4.0 with a turbo of 4.2—still quite good for most titles. You can adjust it to similar limits.
Some percentages for overclocking at a reasonable 1.40v Vcore:
I5-6600K – 4.8 38%
I7-6700K – 4.8 18%
I7-6700K – 4.7 56%
I5-6600K – 4.6 87%
I5-6600K – 4.5 100%
The 14nm skylake chip doesn’t require special cooling for overclocking. The main factors are the chip quality and Vcore, not temperature.
Rogue Leader:
Turbo Boost only increases certain cores (1 or 2) out of the total up to that maximum speed, and only during brief periods. The scenario you describe—processor operating at 4 ghz under heavy load—is completely different from how it actually functions. Regarding your point about GHz, it’s just a number for comparison purposes. A lower GHz processor like the i7 6700 will always outperform a higher one like the i5 6600k, even if the latter runs at a slower speed. If we were to focus solely on GHz, AMD 9590 chips running near 5 GHz would easily surpass the i7 6700, which is still capable of handling gaming tasks. Your strict rule about GHz isn’t very helpful for making a decision. You’ve misinterpreted my message. I wasn’t trying to compare CPUs based purely on GHz across different generations. Still, it’s a valid point that gaming performance depends more on architecture and features than just clock speed.
Geofelt would say Turbo can increase clock speed for a few cores when other parts aren’t under pressure. For gaming chips, I believe the i5-6600K with an overclock would be ideal. Most games won’t demand more than 2-3 cores, so the hyperthreads on the i7-6700K won’t be heavily utilized. If you prefer not to overclock, the stock clock of the i7-6700K is higher at 4.0 with a turbo of 4.2—still quite good for most titles. You can adjust to similar limits.
Some percentages for overclocking at a reasonable 1.40v Vcore:
I5-6600K
4.8 38%
4.7 70%
4.6 83%
I7-6700K
4.8 18%
4.7 56%
4.6 87%
4.5 100%
The 14nm skylake chip doesn’t require special cooling for overclocking; what matters is the quality of the chip and the Vcore, not just temperature. I was actually talking about the 6600k and the non-K 6700, but I got the information I needed from your answer. Thanks a lot.
Rogue Leader:
The Turbo Boost feature only increases the performance of a few cores (1 or 2) out of the total four up to that maximum speed, and this applies only during short bursts. The scenario you describe—processing at 4 GHz under heavy load—is completely different from how the system operates. Regarding your point about GHz, it’s just a number for comparison purposes. An i7-6700 at a lower frequency will always outperform an i5-6600K, even if the latter runs slower. If GHz were the sole deciding factor, many people would choose AMD 9590 models that run near 5 GHz, regardless of other considerations. Gaming-wise, an i5 would suffice for you; you don’t need the i7 unless you’re concerned about performance. Your strict rule about GHz is too narrow and won’t guide you effectively. You’ve misinterpreted my message. I wasn’t trying to compare CPUs based solely on GHz across generations. Still, it’s a valid point that clock speed isn’t everything when comparing i5 and i7.