Two architectures of similar performance or efficiency where one has a higher clockspeed and the higher clocked one will win out in those benchmarks you mention..
But not all architectures have a similar performance or efficiency, which is Ridelynn's point.
No kidding I never said otherwise and even gave him that point which is why I said in architectures of similar efficiency but you keep on blithely ignoring I said that or gave him that point and even agreed with it...and is also why I keep saying he keeps using stupid examples to keep arguing that I am somehow wrong when I agreed with the same point he keeps repeating
It used to be that turbo wasn't that aggressive. A Core i7-920 had a nominal stock speed of 2.66 GHz, and a max single-core turbo of up to 2.93 MHz. People who turned off turbo could sometimes overclock it to 4 GHz. If that's your target hardware, then sure, overclocking makes sense.
Today, for the higher end parts, the single-core turbo is sometimes higher than you can get an all-core stable overclock to on the stock cooler. Sometimes it's higher than you can get an all-core stable overclock to even in a pretty good air cooler. You can still beat it with exotic cooling, of course.
But let's suppose that you have a choice of:
1) One core at 5.0 GHz and the rest clocked low or off 2) Two cores at 4.9 GHz and the rest clocked low or off 3) Four cores at 4.8 GHz and the rest clocked low or off 4) All cores at 4.7 GHz
Which do you prefer? The optimal answer is (1) when you have only one thread that is heavily used, (2) when you have two threads, (3) when you have three or four threads, and (4) when you have more than four threads. Turbo can do something like that for your automatically, while leaving the CPU at stock speeds.
No shite... thanks for agreeing and saying exactly what I was saying.
Now, with a manual overclock, maybe you can get all cores running at 4.8 GHz. That can be a little better than automatic turbo in situations where you're actually pushing all of the cores.
Yes and that is what I am saying in my VR pc example.
But in a lot of workloads, it will be worse than stock speeds, as turbo state (1) or (2) will be better when you have few threads. If that's all that you can get out of overclocking, then why bother?
Indeed and never said otherwise and even said this might be the case. Why bother? Ever consider in most applications stock speeds without turbo is just fine except for maybe in that one activity you use the PC where maybe you do NEED all the cores as fast as they can get instead of just a few....which is pretty much what I was saying from the get go.
One answer is that you didn't get the top bin. You bought a cheaper CPU with a less aggressive stock clock, so its single-core turbo tops out at 4.0 GHz. If you can overclock that to 4.8 GHz, then sure, go ahead.
Turbo isn't perfect yet. But it is getting pretty good. Take about 0.7 MHz off of all of the clock speed numbers above and it's a decent description of a Ryzen 7 2700X. With the numbers as given, it's not that bad of a description of a Core i9-9900K, especially if you didn't spend a lot of money on a cooler.
Sure and I never said otherwise and even said I wasn't 100% sure on how VR would work out... in say the 3700x and yeah I highly doubt I will use a 212 evo for cooling when I have a noctua dh14 laying around.
Again lots of arguments against "me" for things I agreed with when I was only saying it's kind of silly to say clockspeed is a non factor as that's clearly not true if you look at it intelligently instead of some stupid out there example of cpu vs a 6 year old cpu like ridelyn did.
Clockspeed is only a non factor if you are saying it with the implication that the other person you are lecturing is too stupid to understand the cases in which it does become a factor....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Comments
No kidding I never said otherwise and even gave him that point which is why I said in architectures of similar efficiency but you keep on blithely ignoring I said that or gave him that point and even agreed with it...and is also why I keep saying he keeps using stupid examples to keep arguing that I am somehow wrong when I agreed with the same point he keeps repeating
No shite... thanks for agreeing and saying exactly what I was saying.
Yes and that is what I am saying in my VR pc example. Indeed and never said otherwise and even said this might be the case. Why bother? Ever consider in most applications stock speeds without turbo is just fine except for maybe in that one activity you use the PC where maybe you do NEED all the cores as fast as they can get instead of just a few....which is pretty much what I was saying from the get go.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I don’t think I am here though.