@cryoburner You are contradicting yourself by saying 2% difference due to overclocking in one sentence and 20% higher clocks in multi threaded workloads.
No, I said that at around 5 GHz, a 100 MHz (0.1 GHz) increase in clock rates can only equal a 2% increase in performance, at best. So, paying an extra $100 or so for a binned CPU guaranteed to get an extra 100 MHz is arguably a bit silly, since the performance difference should be more or less imperceptible.
Overclocking a Ryzen 2700 is quite a different story, since the CPU only hovers around 3.5 GHz at stock with most of its cores loaded. Compared to those lower clocks, each 100MHz increase works out to be closer to a 3% increase compared to stock, and the processor provides a decent amount of room for overclocking. So, if one manages to overclock that 2700 up to around 4.1 to 4.2GHz on all cores, you could be looking at a 600+MHz overclock, or around 17-20% higher multi-core clocks compared to stock, and it shouldn't cost all that much to get there. However, the difference between a 4.2 and 4.1 GHz overclock is again only about 2.4%, so it's questionable whether there would be much point in paying significantly more to get that extra 100 MHz.
My point is that overclocking is fine, and depending on the stock clocks of a given processor relative to its typical overclocking limits, one might be able to get a decent amount of additional performance out of it. However, you run into diminishing returns when paying a premium to improve your odds of getting a slightly higher overclock.
Looking at SiliconLottery's current offerings, an i7-9700K capable of overclocking to 5.2 GHz is priced at $590, or $470 for one that can hit 5.1 GHz, with shipping starting at $13. Meanwhile, according to their own data, 89% of 9700Ks are capable of overclocking to at least 5.0 GHz at 1.35 volts. So, going by that data, just by picking up a random 9700K off Amazon for $365 shipped, you will be almost guaranteed to get a 5.0 GHz overclock out of it, and it should have about a 36% chance of hitting 5.1 GHz, or a 10% chance of hitting 5.2GHz under their test conditions. That works out to paying nearly $120 to guarantee up to 2% more performance in CPU-limited scenarios compared to what is typical, or nearly $240 for up to 4% more performance. There's probably better components that one could spend that money on, unless their system is already more or less as high-end as it gets.
As for overclocking a 3800X to 4.9 GHz, for one thing, we still don't know whether they will even overclock that high, and for another, we don't know whether a 3700X will overclock to a similar level at a lower price. Also, we don't even know exactly what these processors all-core boost clocks will be until reviews come out. 3.9 GHz is the base clock of the 3800X, which you will likely only ever encounter if the processor is overheating under load. If it's anything like the 2700X, expect all-core boost clocks to be within a couple-hundred megahertz or so of the single-core boost. The 2700X has a base clock of 3.7 GHz and a single-core boost of 4.3 GHz, but it will happily boost all cores up near 4.1 GHz at stock, quite a bit higher than the base clock. That's why the benefits of overclocking a 2700X can be considered a bit questionable, while the benefits of overclocking a 2700 tend to be much more substantial, since you are starting with lower clocks to begin with, yet both processors can overclock to a similar level. It may or may not be a similar situation with the 3700X and the 3800X.
Also, that would be a "moot" point, not a mute point. : 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram