Nehalem Turbo?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by topgun072003, Mar 30, 2009.

  1. topgun072003 macrumors 6502

    topgun072003

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #1
    I understand that the 2.26 Nehalem processor is about equal with the 2.8 '08 model in single threaded apps and the 2.26 outperforms the 2.8 '08 in multi-threaded apps. (from the benchmarks that I've seen)

    But while going through the forums, some people have said, "wait until the turbo is utilized!" Or, "Wait until the Nehalem turbo boost is used."

    1. What is this "turbo boost" and why isn't it being used now and represented in the current benchmarks? What sort of gains would be seen/experienced with the boost?

    2. How easy is it to upgrade th Nehalem chips yourself? Especially with the new hardware architecture. Could I grab some 2.66 X 2 and slap them in there for a cheaper upgrade than the Apple upgrade? Pro's and Con's? (I've read about the 5500 i7 being the one they use because it allows for 2 processors I believe.)

    Thanks in advance for all of your help.
     
  2. galstaph macrumors 6502a

    galstaph

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    The Great White North Eh
    #3
    The turbo boost upclocks the processor when cores are idling. so the quad 2.26 will clock up to a single 2.39 (one step) (at least mine will) and shut down the other cores
    theoretically you can upgrade the processors easily, it is a matter of $$$
     
  3. cmaier macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #4
    "Turbo" is pretty much clever semantics. For many years, chips have operated in power-save modes where they reduce clock speed when the loading is light. (Speedstep, etc.)

    This is sort of the reverse. The processor normally runs at a given clock speed, but under certain conditions (other processors not doing anything), the clock speed can be raised.

    They don't just run at the higher clock speed all the time because doing so would require higher power (and possibly would heat the chip up too much, too).
     
  4. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #5
    Hehehe, this kinda makes me wonder how much of this is only semantics? Right? I mean if we call the reduced speed of the previous chips "normal" and the operating speed "turbo" then it's almost like the same thing renamed. :D

    :D
     
  5. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #6
    According to the aforementioned AnandTech review, these are the max turbo boost speeds... has anyone confirmed whether this feature is actually enabled and working on their Mac Pro?

    According to Intel's white paper it may be somewhat tricky... someone may need to develop a utility to measure it... Any software developers in the house?

    Processor Speed and Cache Comparison

    Xeon model Speed (GHz) - Max. Turbo - Max. Turbo 4 cores busy

    X5570 2.93 - 3.33GHz - 3.2GHz

    X5550 2.66 - 3.066GHz - 2.93GHz

    E5520 2.26 - 2.4GHz - 2.33GHz
     
  6. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #7
    Man turbo boost kind of sucks on a 2.26GHz model.. other 2 are respectable...
     
  7. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #8
    Well my W3520 2.66 under single core load only goes up to 2.79Ghz :confused:

    That sucks hardcore, why can the desktop i7s go higher!? :mad:
     
  8. Mattww macrumors 6502

    Mattww

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    #9
    I wondered how the 3500 series at the same clock speeds might compare to the 5500 series.

    With the 2.66GHz X5550 anandtech are quoting 3.066GHZ (1 core busy) or 2.93GHZ (4 cores busy).

    The 2.93GHz X5570 we all know Apple quote 3.33GHz and anandtech say 3.2GHz with 4 cores busy.

    Anyone find any data for the W3540 2.93GHz Quad?
     
  9. Abidubi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal
    #10
    And how did you measure this? You can probably force the highest turbo by manually disabling all but 1 core.
     
  10. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #11
    How are you able to measure/monitor this?
     
  11. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #12
    CPU-Z in Windows.

    I downloaded prime 95, set it to one thread, locked it to core 0 and only went up one multiplier :(
     
  12. Pika macrumors 68000

    Pika

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #13
    I still remember those 1995 beige boxes with the infamous turbo button on the front of the tower... :D

    [​IMG]

    Ah yes, the all important turbo button, savior to games that needed to run slower.
     
  13. Inconsequential macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #14
    Ok more testing:

    Under 100% 8 thread load it goes to 2.79Ghz.

    I can't for the life of me get it any higher in single core load :confused:
     
  14. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #15
    haha :) that were awsome.
     
  15. trancepriest macrumors 6502

    trancepriest

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    South Florida
  16. cmaier macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #17
    heh, heh. I had one of those. An AST box.
     
  17. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #18
    What can you get if your saturate only one core?
     
  18. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #19
    Simplistic analysis, but more or less correct.
     
  19. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #20
    Lol yeah... but don't you mean more like 1990? Pretty sure they were 486-based.
     
  20. cmaier macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #21
    Mine was a '386.
     
  21. cmaier macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #22
    I'd be happy to go into the complicated analysis, but I think I'd lose most readers a few chapters after P=Vf^2.
     
  22. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #23
    That was the CPU used in the first Intel based system I ever owned. :eek: :p
    LOL :D
     
  23. Macingmusic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    #24
    Right before highschool I needed one and my Great Aunt, who should be a Saint, got it for me and a new car. Iroc Z by chevy I believe. 586 or something. Dot matrix color printer. Turbo. 512 ram?
    50mB harddrive. $3000. Top of the line. Geesh.
     
  24. you39 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #25
    Was that before or after this thread was closed? ;)
     

Share This Page