Opinion: Does anyone know what Intel is playing with its latest lurch?

Intel changes the name of the Pentium processors of the Kaby Lake family to Pentium Gold and will eliminate the Turbo 2.0 and only show the Turbo 3.0, a mode that only activates the frequency cap on only two cores.

I've been wondering for days what the heck Intel is playing with the company's latest moves, which don't make sense. The first and most striking is to change the name of the Pentium processors from the Kaby Lake family to Pentium Gold, something that currently only happens in the aforementioned Intel family. This strategy, quite absurd, the logical thing would have been to implement it from the beginning or to bet on renaming them in the new family of processors, the Coffee Lake. The concealment of part of the frequencies of Intel processors is added to this announcement.

Although the movement in the entry-level processors does not seem logical and has no interest and more at a time when the production of the Pentium G4560, the best-selling processor of the Kaby Lake family, has been halted, which clearly eclipsed The Core i3. Be that as it may, this renaming, not very logical, is simply a marketing strategy that could be extrapolated from the family of processors for servers and Data Centers, such as Intel Xeon, which according to quality and performance receive the Bronze, Silver and Gold tag. .

This strategy that I question does not seem relevant to me, it seems relevant to me to hide the Turbo 2.0 in the Coffee Lake processors and only show the Tube 3.0. The difference is as follows: Turbo 2.0 refers to the maximum frequency of the processor, which can be reached automatically, without user intervention, depending on the load and on all processor cores. Turbo 3.0, on the other hand, refers to the top frequency that two of the processor cores reach at times of load, specifically the two best cores of a processor, something already introduced in the Intel Basins Falls, processors based on the Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X architecture, intended for workstations.

10nm node construction begins shortly

Let's say that any processor can work at a base frequency of 3.5GHz and has the Boost 2.0 mode, which allows all processor cores to reach 4.4GHz, when it is subjected to a great load. The Turbo 3.0 will allow, if it has it, the processor, to reach 4.6GHz, but only to two cores, to the two best cores, improving performance and working times. Removing the Turbo 2.0 from the specifications is clearly misleading, since a part of the cores did not reach this frequency, something that could be considered a scam, since if this data is not referenced well, a user could buy the processor thinking which will be the maximum frequency and really only refers to part of the processor.

I think it is a sad thing this done by Intel and a bad decision. AMD has played its cards well with Ryzen, and Intel's response, with fewer cores and more power efficiency, bypasses AMD's processors. I imagine this Intel strategy will make some sense in the company, but for inexperienced users or those who do not know this data, they could be considered scammed, I repeat, if Intel does not establish the specifications correctly and give the appropriate data.

Show more

Roberto Solé

Director of Contents and Writing of this same website, technician in renewable energy generation systems and low voltage electrical technician. I work in front of a PC, in my free time I am in front of a PC and when I leave the house I am glued to the screen of my smartphone. Every morning when I wake up I walk across the Stargate to make some coffee and start watching YouTube videos. I once saw a dragon ... or was it a Dragonite?

Related publications


  1. Surely and as you mentioned, everything is part of a marketing strategy, with which it is intended to make these processors see as something more than what they really are, on the other hand, surely and to maintain consumption and temperatures of an architecture more than stressed and refried, the turbo 2.0 will be of a more conservative level which would not be very well received by users! ... is what I think!

  2. Exactly that scam the average user who has no idea will see that frequency and think it is the maximum frequency on all cores I have no idea because intel is doing these strange movements.

    Another thing in a previous article you posted that amd's internal shareholders were selling their shares, but wouldn't that make AMD's shares go down? And yet this week it has not stopped rising, I have been investigating and there is no very relevant news that makes the shares rise so much. Maybe Intel and AMD have inside information that we still don't know? But if this is not the case, why have the shares risen so much?

    1. I already saw the reason (perhaps) in your article you say that managers are selling shares, but there are other managers within AMD who are buying them and perhaps this is due to the increase in AMD shares if their managers are buying their shares can be it for two reasons either they want to speculate on amd's actions or they really trust her like a new ryzen coming out in february.

      Anyway I leave the source here is in English and the paragraph that I get this information is at the end.

    1. Yes, it is, but in Broadwell-E it was only one core and in Skylake-X it is two core, that's the small difference.

  3. I think it's very clear. Why specify turbo 2.0 If the turbo 3.0 is going to do the same job or better. To my understanding we are falling into redundancy. It's like when someone says that the honda engine is vtec. But what is vtec. Well the vtec engine is ………………………. every few years these engines are still evolving and changing. But it is still vtec. Now you want that every time you change the on the micro they specify everything as if the person who buys a new car asks what technology the engine brings. It is the last of honda. Your new vtec engine. And what a trade. Well bring …………………… .. in the end the buyer does not understand or dad but still buys it

    1. The Turbo 3.0 does not do the same as the Turbo 2.0, basically, because the Turbo 3.0 only affects two cores of the processor, while the 2.0 affects all the cores, it is the first thing to know how to distinguish, that is where the problem.

      1. I already know that. And that's why I say it is redundant. The 3.0 is supposed to get more probecho out of the nuclei. I know you work with less. But if two cores can do the work of 4 6 or 8 in less time. What do you want to boost 2.0 for?

        1. It does not work like that. Once all the cores reach Boost 2.0, two of them can go up a little more frequently with Boost 3.0, to speed up the task at hand, it is not that two do the work that 4, 6 or 8 cores do.

  4. That's why they are over, and they broke all the power records, there is nothing so powerful at those prices in the market.

Leave an answer

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Button back to top