Question All cores at @4.15ghz or Single core @ 4.3ghz?

[anxh]

So, I have an i3 10100f, and i know i cant OC it, obviously. So i decided to set all the clock speeds to max but as its not a K card, its giving me only 4.15ghz instead of the entire 4.3. I understand it might be better for the overall performance, but what about playing games? Would they prefer single core advantage or the overall 4.1ghz

 

[boju]

The days where games use only one core are long gone. You could disable cores/threads using affinity in Windows if bios doesn't allow it but performance will tank in games that can utilise multiple cores despite frequency being a tad higher.

 

[MCH170]

I would suggest you don't mess with the clocks and just remove power limits from bios and increase the boost duration to the maximum available. The idle power consumption from manually setting the core multipliers isn't worth it imo.

 

[Misgar]

i know i cant OC it, obviously

Not strictly true? You might be able to run a mild BCLK overclock on some motherboards, because your CPU is multiplier-locked, but I wouldn't bother.
https://www.thetechwire.com/what-is-bclk/

The 10100F has a maximum Turbo Boost of 4.3GHz, but this probably applies only to "lightly threaded" tasks running on one or two cores. As the workload increases, using more cores, so the maximum processor frequency drops. 4.15GHz all-core? sounds quite reasonable.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core i3 i3-10100F.html

 

[anxh]

I would suggest you don't mess with the clocks and just remove power limits from bios and increase the boost duration to the maximum available. The idle power consumption from manually setting the core multipliers isn't worth it imo.

is there a tradeoff?

 

[anxh]

Not strictly true? You might be able to run a mild BCLK overclock on some motherboards, because your CPU is multiplier-locked, but I wouldn't bother.
https://www.thetechwire.com/what-is-bclk/

The 10100F has a maximum Turbo Boost of 4.3GHz, but this probably applies only to "lightly threaded" tasks running on one or two cores. As the workload increases, using more cores, so the maximum processor frequency drops. 4.15GHz all-core? sounds quite reasonable.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core i3 i3-10100F.html

that is what i did. I pumped it up from my base clock multiplier (36 for 3.6ghz, to 43 for 4.3) But it stays at 4.15, which is fine as well

 

[Bob.B]

So, I have an i3 10100f, and i know i cant OC it, obviously. So i decided to set all the clock speeds to max but as its not a K card, its giving me only 4.15ghz instead of the entire 4.3. I understand it might be better for the overall performance, but what about playing games? Would they prefer single core advantage or the overall 4.1ghz

Perhaps run your stuff with clocks at default and max and see if you can see a diff.

 

[MCH170]

is there a tradeoff?

Not really. It means that, when under stress, your cpu can take as much power as it wants for as long as it wants within Intel's max limits of course. It may run a bit hotter but realistically that won't be an issue with an i3.

 

[wyliec2]

How much difference is .15 GHz (4.15 - 4.30) going to make....realistically??!!