You are all missing the point that Max Turbo frequency single core is usually slightly higher than multicore Max Turbo frequency(Intel CPUs) P-Cores.
On mine CPU multicore Max Turbo is 4.5 GHz(can be measured over a time), the specs say 4.7 GHz single core.
No idea how you can actually run single core on PCs and Apps these days with the complexities of modern CPUs and Apps.
It's only 0.2 GHz so who cares.
im currently on an intel i7 7700, so P and E cores are not present on my CPU. P and E cores werent introduced until 12th gen. i never knew how turbo frequency effected pre-P and E core chips, but when i was using a 13900kf, i do remember that the first 2 or 4 cores are the ones that only got turbo frequency boosted like you said. i had to OC in BIOS (Aorus Z790) to get all cores to and beyond turbo boost frequency (5.8GHz all core stable)
I have read that most office, productivity and other apps don't use many cores, so single core performance is more important than multi core. This includes many older games. Only new games and a few apps use many cores and have better performance the more cores you have. This is for core-crazy AMD fans that think Intel CPUs are crap because they generally have less cores than AMD CPUs. Since most apps and old games need single core performance, Intel clearly beats AMD because it has less cores but slightly higher single core performance. All of us that paid more for Intel are not suckers. We preferred less cores but better performance than many slower cores, since few apps benefit from too many cores. (Excuse me, I am hiding before AMD fans get me...)
this is why i was an intel fan boy for a long time. retro games use only 1 core, unless its a modern source port of that game that adds support for multicore rendering. i remember the first games i saw these with was Half-Life 2 and other Source games. id say games didnt start to support more than 1 core until after mid 2000s
www.vogons.org
my experience using the new intel chips though with the P core E core fiasco has no longer made me an intel fanboy. my next cpu will be AMD. cs2 and games in general run faster on amd
The ultimate CPU battle is here: AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D faces Intel's Core i9-14900K in a 45-game showdown. With massive benchmarks and head-to-head testing, which processor will...
www.techspot.com
i had the 13900kf, which was just about as fast as the 14900k, and even their new Ultra 9 285k, meaning they have put out poop for a while. on top of the intel voltage issue that damaged your chip and needed a bios update that happened not to long ago. very disappointed in intel. they were king for the longest time though.
theres also to consider having more cores makes your OS run better, which makes your games more stable and run better too. even if the game doesnt support all the cores, your OS is taking advantage and that can help make the game run a little better.
i hope by the time i upgrade my machine, intel releases a chip that beats the 9800X3D or its amd for me
i also ran the CPU_Frequency.bat script with 4200, 0, and 9999 values but my frequency is still at 4.0ghz. this must be locked by the bios which doesnt allow me to manually change the frequency. its the best this particular system can do. dang dell machines are poop lol
