Comparison of Core Overclocking vs All Core Overclocking
Comparison of Core Overclocking vs All Core Overclocking
I've been looking into this and noticed that synthetic benchmarks often show lower scores even with more cores, while real games seem to utilize all cores effectively. I'm puzzled about why boosting overclocking on a 6 P Core leads to worse performance compared to lower overclocks across all cores.
High frequency isn't the only factor. The calculations about what the CPU does and how it executes tasks are much more intricate than commonly assumed.
Someone familiar with 12th gen+ systems can freely point out any corrections if needed, as Intel historically designs per-core clocks with specific ratios for certain core counts. While individual core limits can be adjusted, it seems they still depend on the overall configuration. For instance, in a hypothetical 14900k setup, setting two cores to 6ghz, four to 5.8ghz, and eight to 5.6ghz (stock turbo max) versus all eight cores at 5.7ghz would yield different results. Workloads with more than four cores would perform better on the latter due to higher core speeds, whereas those with one to four cores would benefit from the former. This approach appears consistent with how TPU reviews handle clock settings.
This is true. Has been so since Nehalem architecture (2008 and onwards).
Then again, usually when CPU OC is done, it is all core OC, negating the effects of different Turbo Boost ratios on different core amounts.
But on the flip side, the latest CPUs are so fine tuned that they have little, if any OC headroom (frequencies over max turbo ratio).
Back in the day, with older CPUs, CPU OC was worthwhile.
E.g i have i5-6600K with 3.5 GHz base and 3.9 Ghz boost. With CPU OC, i could get it 4.5 Ghz all core (increase of 600 Mhz over boost), or with delid, ~4.7 Ghz all core (800 Mhz over boost). And there have been some delidded i5-6600K CPUs, that can hold 5 Ghz all core.
Essentially from 12th gen and onwards, most chips out there can only hold all core stable 100-300 Mhz over max boost. That gain is so little, that CPU OC with current, highly efficient chips, isn't worthwhile. There won't be any meaningful performance increase.
If the headroom would be bigger, like it is with my 6th gen CPU, where on minimum, i look towards 600 Mhz increase over boost clocks (or up to 1.1 Ghz over boost, if very lucky with delidded chip), then CPU OC makes sense.
All-in-all, CPU OC is dying niche and outside of record breaking, isn't worth the effort anymore. Better to run stock clocks and let CPU to decide when to turbo up. Less energy waste and less heat production this way also.
It seems from what I'm reading that the workload indicates how many cores are required. What catches my attention is how many games benefit from more than four cores. Back then, games typically used just two, while only a few used four. I need to verify when I get home if everything is set to 56x or if I have all but two at 56x and two at 58x on my 13700. I'm looking forward to reviewing the information once I'm back. Thank you all.
When it comes to generating commands to render a frame, that part isn't really multithreaded. While the work submission to it can be multithreaded, there's still only one GPU, and the number of commands to be generated is capped by say 1-3 frames, so there's no real point in having multiple command generators.
As a result, getting higher FPS means needing higher single core performance. However, this is after the CPU can manage all of the other game logic in a timely manner. So if you want to target say 200 FPS, the game logic and render command generation need to happen in less than 5ms.
Some game benchmarks or other display stats show "CPU render time" or something like that. DOOM 2016/Eternal, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Forza Horizon 5 off the top of my head have this. That's a useful metric since that tells you the fastest the game can run on your system.