If you have been keeping up to date with any of the AnandTech motherboard reviews lately, there has been one topic that has been hot on my lips, and it is called ‘MultiCore Enhancement’.  As an exercise in explanation and opinion, we would like to know your thoughts on this, and how it would affect you as a user.

To start, let me describe what we are talking about.  On the latest line of Intel CPUs, we have multiple cores all willing to provide computational throughput.  The CPU itself has a listed stock speed, and a thermal window to ensure stable operation.  At the stock speed, the CPU does not hit the thermal window, so Intel assign higher speeds depending on how much computational power is needed, and this is adjusted to fit inside the power requirements.  Thus when a user requires only one CPU core, the CPU can be allocated the maximum turbo speed – when more cores are requested, the speed of the CPU drops until all cores are in use.  This is what Intel designates the ‘Turbo Boost’ for the CPU.

In the case of the latest Ivy Bridge CPU, the i7-3770K, this CPU has a nominal speed of 3.5 GHz.  However, the turbo boost is set such that in single threaded mode, the CPU can run at 3.9 GHz by adjusting the multiplier to 39x.  As more cores are loaded, the CPU reduces the multiplier down, until all four cores are in use and the processor is running at 3.7 GHz, still 200 MHz above the rated speed on the box.  This also applies to other processors:

CPU Turbo Bins
(4C / 8T)
(4C / 4T)
(4C / 8T)
(6C / 12T)
(4C / 8T)
Rated Speed 3.5 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.4 GHz 3.3 GHz 3.6 GHz
1 Core 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.9 GHz 3.9 GHz
2 Core 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz 3.8 GHz
3 Core 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
4 Core 3.7 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.5 GHz 3.8 GHz 3.7 GHz
5 Core - - - 3.7 GHz -
6 Core - - - 3.6 GHz -

However this technology is not defined by the processor itself.  The act of telling the processor to run at a certain speed is set by the motherboard, not the processor.  So as part of the deal with Intel, motherboard manufacturers’ code in the BIOS the algorithm to make the CPU switch speeds as required.  This algorithm can be aggressive, such that turbo boosts are held for a short time when CPU loading goes from low to high, or instant when CPU power is needed or not needed.  This algorithm and switching speed can determine how well a motherboard performs in CPU benchmarks.

This is all well and good when every manufacturer adheres to this specification.  But a new ‘feature’ has made its way onto our motherboards.  Since X79, ASUS has been implementing a feature they call ‘MultiCore Enhancement’ whenever XMP has been set.  Gigabyte has implemented this since their Z77 suite but as of yet leave it un-named, and ASRock are going to start using ‘MultiCore Acceleration’ with their Z77 OC Formula.  EVGA also has something in the pipeline for their Z77 boards.  This feature, put simply, gives the CPU some extra speed.

With these motherboards, usually when XMP is enabled, the CPU is told to use the top turbo boost setting under all loads.  That means a CPU like the i7-3770K has only two speeds – 3.9 GHz while under CPU load, and 1.2 GHz at idle.  For motherboards that implement this feature, they get a significant boost in their CPU benchmark scores.  As a result, the user who runs their processor at stock also gets up to 300 MHz more speed during multithreaded loading.

Technically, this is an overclock.  Typically we are told that overclocking a system is liable to void the warranty on both the processor and the motherboard.  With the case of the processor, typically what Intel put on the shelves is a safe speed – they are not pushing any competition to the limits, so these processors have breathing room and this ‘overclock’ should not harm longevity.  Nevertheless, Intel is usually very willing to replace processors (if I extrapolate the stories of returns I have heard).  With motherboards, they are designed to hold the top turbo bin at single core loads, so full threaded load should not be much of an issue.  Given that it is the motherboard manufacturers themselves that apply this, it would be reasonable that RMAs would be honored.

There has been a precedent with this in the past – when Turbo Boost was not part of the processor paradigm, motherboard manufacturers used to play around with the CPU FSB speed before it was passed through the multiplier.  So instead of 100.0 MHz on the FSB, we used to get 100.3 MHz, 100.8 MHz, 101.3 MHz, and even a case of 102.1 MHz I believe.  So essentially, a free 2.1% overclock if you ran the processor at stock speeds.

Given all this, I recently tested one motherboard that pushed the boundaries beyond the ‘normal’ MultiCore Enhancement.  The Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3, by default, gave the i7-3770K a 4.0 GHz turbo mode at any speed.  As a result, it took top spot in all our benchmark settings.  The G1.Sniper 3 is a high end product, so producing the jump was not much extra work for the product itself.  However, it does open up a variety of questions.

- How many users run processors (K or non-K) at stock?
- How many will notice the difference in speed?
- Will they worry that technically it is an overclock?
- Will a manufacturer go that one step further, to 4.1 GHz, or 4.2 GHz?  What is a safe limit?

Here are the results from one of my benchmark tests.  Here is 3DPM, a memory agnostic benchmark, using the multi-threaded version:

3D Particle Movement - MultiThreaded

Here we see that the boards with MCE all come top.  More cores means more points, and more MHz is king.  Boards without MCE have to have an aggressive turbo switching algorithm to stay close, or fall behind up to 10% away from those without MCE.

I would like to cite some scenarios involving individuals and their computers in order to draw some conclusions.

  • Person 1 uses his machine for gaming.  While an active gamer, his budget is low and does not know how to adjust the BIOS, but his system plays his games well enough not to overclock.
  • Person 2 is an enthusiast with a high budget.  His system uses the best components, and he is always striving for top speed through overclocking.
  • Person 3 uses their pre-built machine for work and email, sometimes watching movies or video websites.  They have no need for overclocking.
  • Person 4 has a low power HTPC, and is focused on keeping his footprint green.  They buy a low powered CPU, and use it to watch videos.  The system is not underclocked, but when under load, the CPU will implement the full turbo mode.

Deductive reasoning tells us that Persons 1 + 3 will benefit slightly from MultiCore Enhancement, however the gamer moreso than the worker.  Person 2 overclocks, and thus MCE does not affect them.  Person 4 is more like a victim of MCE – without going into the BIOS they are unnecessarily using more energy than needs be.

Several companies have approached me and ask why I test motherboards with MCE enabled.  My response is that I test the ‘out of the box’ performance for the majority of users, such as Person 1, or system builders making machines for Person 3.  If I pre-overclocked the normal ATX boards, while that would help Person 2 in their decision, I would have to do it as well for Person 4 in order to keep the comparisons between ATX and mITX relevant.  Keeping everything at default on the latest BIOS is a steady baseline between these scenarios – if a motherboard manufacturer wants to be aggressive and enable MCE (or MCE-plus), then that is up to them.  But as a result of MCE, some companies who have not enabled it are being left behind in terms of stock CPU performance.

The point of this pipeline post is to ask our readers what they think of MultiCore Enhancement.  Do you like it?  Does it matter to you?  Should it become the standard, or should companies offer different SKUs with and without MCE?  If two motherboards from different companies are all equal on price and features but differ by MCE, would you go for MCE?  Would you worry about longevity?  Please let us know in the comments.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Exodite - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Put me in the crowd which are squarely against it.

    Not only because it technically pushes the hardware out of spec by default, but also because I don't like the idea of motherboard makers deciding what's best for me.

    On top of that I'm the kind of person who undervolts rather than overclocks. Sure, as long as you can turn this off at the BIOS level it's not too painful to handle but I'm struggling to see the upside in the first place.

    Then again I never agreed with the slight FSB overclocks many manufacturers like to use either.
  • IanCutress - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Technically most processors are well inside their limits to begin with. Intel has no reason to push the silicon because there's no competition - there have been tests online with 50 i7-3770K processors from different batches and each one overclocked to at least 4.6 GHz on air without issue. As shown in my original overclocking article, at stock volts these processors can get an additional 500 MHz without stressing the system.

    The upside of MCE is that little bit of extra performance when you're stressing the system. Video editing, unzipping - at the end of the day it means the computationally heavy process is a few seconds faster each time, in exchange for a few extra watts at the meter.

    MCE-plus is where a manufacturer truly takes it out of specifications, but as long as they've done their homework, and provide a feature to disable it, then we get the best of both worlds, surely.

    Motherboard manufacturers have a hard time distinguishing themselves - this is just another feature in their arsenal, but actually one that can directly affect everyone, rather than having 40 phases or a 12-layer PCB.

  • Exodite - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Sure, I'm not implying that stuff will blow up in the users face due to it - that wouldn't really be in the motherboard makers best interests. :)

    It's just ever so slightly dishonest, and /technically/ out of spec.

    My 2600K happily does 4.2GHz on stock voltage (load 1.25) but when I can run it at stock clocks on 1.15 and idle at 0.9 I'll take that.

    In the end it won't matter much for anyone that doesn't use the stock BIOS options in the first place, I just feel that stock options shouldn't pull the hardware out of spec.
  • Mr Perfect - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Do all of the MCE implementations keep the CPU at stock voltage then? MCE-Plus does overclocking and overvolting?
  • Astennu - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    I feld the need to commend on this one so i made a account.
    I think MCE is unfair. Just as slight FSB overclocks in the past are unfair. They Mask how good motherboards really are and make it harder to compare different boards and different CPU's.

    You could opt to just disable turbo to make things fair again. But then you have the problem that Intel cpu's have a disatvantage when tested vs AMD cpu's.

    In my option MCE is a overclock. I personally dont mind because i run all the cores of my 3770K on 4600 anyway. But in this case they are going past the specifications for the product. Intel does not have 3900 MHz for 4 cores in the specs so its overclocking. And it sould not be tested like this.

    It would be unfair to test a Intel cpu with MCE vs a AMD system. Or bv a non MCE system. Of its possible MCE should be disabled in reviews. And tests should be done with regular turbo.

    But this is my Opinion
  • IanCutress - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Most users do not touch the BIOS, so if I disable MCE, it would be under-representing the performance of the product, surely? Motherboard manufacturers for a long time have been able to be aggressive with many settings - switching frequencies, memory subtimings et al. This is just another setting in the BIOS they have decided to change, except it can affect users in a positive way. The processors are not on the verge of dying when you buy them - they are conservatively clocked and easily go beyond their specifications. In our motherboard testing, we're specifically testing the motherboard and the settings the manufacturer has chosen to sell with the board, rather than the CPU.

  • Fx1 - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    What kind of Faggot doesnt overclock his CPU anyway? i have never seen one die due to overclocking. Who cares about RMA? Void warranty? pshhh Its all scare tactics. Standard clocks are way to conservative anyway. Intel should be pushing the envelope. Everyone with a K processor is running 4-4.5ghz 24/7 anyway.
  • Streetwind - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    Congratulations. This is possibly the worst comment I've ever read on Anandtech.
  • cjb110 - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    I think it should be set to off in any comparative benchmarks. What has the motherboard done to be at the top? apart from forcing the processor faster, so its akin to using different speed processors in your test-bed...which is an obvious no-no.

    You've also lost a 'test', as your no longer testing how well the motherboard switches the processor speed. There's been case in the past where people turned on energy saving, and the mobo ignored it!

    A lot of the time you do the 'highest' overclock test, that tells everybody how good the mobo is at coping with faster than default speeds.

    And as a side point, Intel put the work in to balance speed and power consumption, this is the right thing given the dwindling energy supplies. So this should be considered an option for the selfish, and not something recommend!
  • Senti - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link

    MCE as well as Turbo Boost are completely useless for me as I'm "class 2" person and always run all my CPUs at stable top speed (with energy saving features all preserved). Running modern CPUs on official or even Turbo Boost speeds is such a waste...

    On the other hand, if MCE doesn't damage energy saving features (primary, C-states, not the almost useless on desktop clock changes) as it was for example with my i7-930 that many motherboards can run in permanent turbo (not the very top bin of it though) but that effectively disables disables most (all?) energy saving – I have nothing against MCE and even MCE-plus that are still way below of what CPUs are capable of.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now