Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Nehalem Clocks and "Turbo Mode"

  1. #1
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,061

    Lightbulb Nehalem Clocks and "Turbo Mode"

    I recently blogged the following article and I'm interested in your opinion...

    A big question on everyone's mind is what CPU frequency will intial Nehalem parts be clocked at and what overclocking head room might exist?

    Although a demo machine was recently reported to be running Nehalem at 3.2GHz, we can't be positive based on the evidence provided that this early sample was, in fact, running at that speed. However, it's not unreasonable for Bloomfield to launch at 3GHz speeds given that Penryn's highest binned parts are shipping at 3.2GHz. This is supported, in part, by the fact that Nehalem's 731 million transistors compares favorably to Penryn's 820 million (both at 45nm).

    It seems plausible that Nehalem should theoretically clock just as well as Penryn at the same Thermal Design Power (TDP) with the same cooling solution. The big unknown is what effect the onboard Memory Controller Hub (MCH) will have on clock speed limitations.

    Another intersting aspect to Nehalem is the reports of a "Turbo Mode". While published details are hard to come by, this dynamic core clocking capability is illustrated in the slide below (courtesy of HKEPC). It appears to be an extension of the Performance States of the Adavanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) specification also know as SpeedStep technology (P-States). It suggests that when load allows one or more cores to be throttled down into a low frequency mode (LFM) the remaining active loaded cores can actually be overclocked to higher than default clock frequencies as long as the default TDP is not exceeded.


    (source: HKEPC)

    While this is an exciting development, unfortunately it raises more questions than it answers.... for example, it's not clear if this feature will work with overclocked chips or only those running at default clocks and multipliers. It's also not clear what events or conditions trigger the LFM for the unutilized cores and similarly what events or conditions trigger the overclocked P-states of the active cores. Finally, there's no insight into how much control the BIOS, OS, or end-user will have over this capability.

    We can only hope that Nehalem's Turbo Mode follows the current SpeedStep implementation which can be managed at both the BIOS and/or Operating System level to allow modifying the multiplier in response to CPU loads. That is, if one overclocks their reference clock from default, this feature will ideally manage core clocks by adjusting the multi's up or down as load dictates thus allowing overclockers to benefit from this feature as much as factory clocked systems.

    If this feature does support overclocking, it will add another dimension to stability testing as a stable operating point for all 4 cores will also have to consider the "Turbo Mode" state.

    Needless to say, the benefits of this kind of dynamic overclocking with balanced performance on multiple cores for multi-threaded apps while also offering maximum clock speed on single-threaded programs, all with the same cooling solution, effectively ensures one can "have their cake and eat it too"!
    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    enteon@jabber.ccc.de
    Posts
    292
    may be nice for a lot of people

    ...but i dont' need it ... crunching, you know

  3. #3
    all outta gum
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    3,390
    If such feature really exists, I think it'll be like SpeedStep and everyone will be turning it off when overclocking. Just set all cores to turbo an you're good to go
    www.teampclab.pl
    MOA 2009 Poland #2, AMD Black Ops 2010, MOA 2011 Poland #1, MOA 2011 EMEA #12

    Test bench: empty

  4. #4
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    4,151
    Well this means we will get extra multies to play with

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by xoqolatl View Post
    If such feature really exists, I think it'll be like SpeedStep and everyone will be turning it off when overclocking. Just set all cores to turbo an you're good to go
    I know a lot of people here disable SpeedStep while finessing their overclocks but some turn it back on when they are happy with their final outcome so that they can get the best of both performance (under load) and silence (when idle).

    I could see this Turbo Mode also appealing to Overclockers as much as anyone... if you can get 400x9 (3.6GHz) Prime stable on four cores, wouldn't it be nice to be able to run 400x11 (4.4GHz) on just one or two cores when needed?

  6. #6
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    enteon@jabber.ccc.de
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by virtualrain View Post
    wouldn't it be nice to be able to run 400x11 (4.4GHz) on just one or two cores when needed?
    no, because the other cores would be equally castrated
    only good for badly made but also hungry games or "professional" software

  7. #7
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    steelcity.pa.usa
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by enteon View Post
    no, because the other cores would be equally castrated
    only good for badly made but also hungry games or "professional" software
    agreed... technology like this just encourages bad programming.
    STARSCREAM
    3570k @ 4.6 GHz | Asus P8Z77-V LK | G.Skill F3-12800CL8D-8GBXM | ASUS GeForce GTX550 Ti
    Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB | Corsair Force GT 120GB | SK hynix 128GB | Samsung 830 64GB
    WD Black 640GB (3) | Seagate 7200rpm 1TB | Dell Perc H310 xflashed to LSI 9211-8i
    Corsair AX750 | CoolerMaster Hyper 212 | Antec P280 | Dell Ultrasharp U2410 | BenQ XL2420T
    ROCCAT Savu | Filco Majestouch-2 TKL w/Cherry MX Reds
    MEGATRON
    3770k @ 4.5GHz | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | G.Skill F3-12800CL8D-8GBXM
    SK hynix 128GB | Mushkin Enhanced Chronos 60GB | WD Red 3TB (4) | Seagate 7200rpm 3TB (2)
    WD Green 2TB (3) | Seagate 7200rpm 1TB | Dell Perc H310 xflashed to LSI 9211-8i (2)
    Corsair AX650 | Corsair H80i

  8. #8
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by virtualrain View Post
    Thoughts?
    Nice article overall. You'll be dissapointed by your first section with the integrated memory controller chips though. Wait and see

  9. #9
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,792
    Just to came it clear: The "turbo" mode is not new, Intel uses it in Penryn processors for better single-threaded application performance over 65nm Core 2, just most end users don't remember the early hype about it. It's called Intel Dynamic Acceleration Technology:
    http://apcmag.com/intel_announces_co...erclocking.htm
    http://www.intel.com/technology/arch...whitepaper.pdf

    That's why what you see in a single thread is not strictly "xGHz" performance at all.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •