Intel
Rules
-
Be civil. Uncivil language, slurs, and insults will result in a ban. If you can't say something respectfully, don't say it at all.
-
No Unoriginal Sources, Referral links or Paywalled Articles.
-
All posts must be related to Intel or Intel products.
-
Give competitors' recommendations only where appropriate. If a user asks for Intel only (i.e. i5-12600k vs i5-13400?) recommendations, do not reply with non-Intel recommendations. Commenting on a build pic saying they should have gone AMD/Nvidia is also inappropriate, don't be rude. Let people enjoy things.
-
CPU Cooling problems: Just like 95C is normal for Ryzen, 100C is normal for Intel CPUs in many workloads. If you're worried about CPU temperatures, please look at reviews for the laptop or CPU cooler you're using.
view the rest of the comments
No.
Most use cases are characterized by small bursts of performance with alot of idle time while the user reads or constant load until completion. Neither of those benefit from what you are asking for.
In a thermally limited application like a laptop OEM's will ALWAYS boost as high as they can based on thermal and power headroom until they cannot. The alternative is 10% the performance you get now. Even the Apple chips do the same but with a wildly different thermal headroom to thermal load equation than we are used to.
Wait till OP learns smart phone CPUs spend most of their time at low clock speeds.
Ah yes. 3ghz processor of nova 11i running at <2ghz
Does that mean we could save money by buying a cheaper i5 that runs closer to it's capacity than a throttled i7?
There are absolutely laptop configurations where a lower tier cpu with lower cores for example like an i7 can outperform a higher tier one like an i9 because of thermal and power headroom that allow the lower core counts to run unthrottled longer.
Does that mean we could save money by buying a cheaper i5 that runs closer to it's capacity than a throttled i7?