Gadgetory

before I say anything else I would like to point out that these tests were conducted because I was curious that's it there's nothing else to it there's no rhyme or reason behind it other than the fact that I wanted to see what would happen when I severely under clocked my 5820k I don't recommend doing this it wouldn't make much sense apart from power consumption decline a much cooler system and a much quieter one as a result there is absolutely no reason why you should drop your CPU frequency down to 1.2 gigahertz or thereabouts doesn't matter what processor you're sporting what CPU cooler you're using just don't do it why did I do it you asked whoa whoa wait wait yeah that did it yeah bitch magnets Oh what you're about to see is a side-by-side comparison between a 5820k running at 1.2 gigahertz and point 8 volts that was the lowest I could drop the voltage without the computer refusing to boot up and the same cpu running at 4.6 gigahertz and 1.32 volts with a minimal graphics card bottleneck how large of a framerate disparity will we see in modern triple-a titles let's start off first with a few synthetics I ran I 264 first to check temps and make sure both clocks were stable on the left is the under clocked run the right the overclocked one our temps literally did not change during the extent of our under clocked run something I suppose shouldn't be too surprising given the voltage applied but it's still surreal to see an X 99 CPU running at this temperature under load on the other hand the overclock scenario yielded temperatures that were extremely uncomfortable the voltage applied was perfectly fine and stable but the 240 millimeter AIO I was using just couldn't dissipate heat quick enough even with its pomp and fans at their max RPMs for the record I run the CPU at 1.31 volts and 4.5 gigahertz for this very reason next up with Cinebench r15 and as you can probably tell the under clock test resulted in a huge cv score cut almost 75% by the time the tests finally finished we managed a mere 317 something even my Q 6600 laughs at Geekbench mirror these findings roughly 70% cut for the 1.2 gigahertz run in this case something worth mentioning here is how drastically the multi-core or change compared to that of this single-core when you have more overclockable cores at your disposal overall performance can significantly jump it's what makes the x99 chipset so appealing but only if the games and programs being used are able to take advantage of the core surplus now let's throw a few games is severely under clocked beast is it actually is it even a beast if it's running at 1.2 gigahertz the answer is a big fat no check out this side-by-side comparison of the GTA 5 benchmark there is an enormous framerate disparity and we can analyze it in two different ways the first is from a simple minimum and average framerate bar graph 135 versus 48 frames per second on average is a stellar representation of how important CPU frequency is to a degree there's another way we can look at this frame times instead of looking at this in terms of frames per second let's try milliseconds per frame in this case we're looking for a flat and consistent line with minimal spikes the 1.2 gigahertz run was all over the place and finishes quicker because fewer frames were drawn overall the 4.6 gigahertz run is a very flat and linear line devoid of spikes this is exactly what we want to see a good indicator of a well balanced system for this game I'm running two gtx 1070 s and sli by the way so GP bottlenecking should be minimal the only game on our list that's not properly sli optimized is city skylines explained and verified right here but even with only one GPU breaking a sweat it was a CPU that held us back substantially both the average and minimum frame rates were utterly disappointing for the 1.2 gigahertz chip 19 FPS on average wouldn't even cut it in the console sphere hue and check out that minimum seven single digits let's move on how about a GPU bound title in the video I pointed to a bit earlier we verify that Witcher 3 on ultra settings is a graphics card hog maxing out both 10 70s consistently in this scenario however the CPUs abysmal frequency played far too greater role in frame rate reduction these disparities aren't the worst we've seen thus far but it's important to note that even GPU bound titles can be CPU bound in the right situations lastly we have battlefield 1 not a title I expected to perform as well as it did frankly you're looking at a side-by-side comparison here can you tell which is which in this instance battlefields craving Coors overclocks something I expect will become the norm by the turn of the decade directx12 in Vulcan will accelerate this trend but for now battlefield one remains one of the few games demanding more than four cores in which case the lower frequency isn't as pivotal it's still clearly lower the overall frame rate but not by the degree I expected it to to keep this one short and sweet don't do what I did there is absolutely no point don't buy a locked Xeon running at one point whatever gigahertz and don't limit yourself to locked SKUs in general if you're certain your graphics card can pull its own weight if you thought this video was interesting give it a thumbs up give it a thumbs down if you feel the complete opposite or if you hate everything about life be sure to click that subscribe button if you haven't already I'll catch you in the next video this is Salazar studio thanks for learning with us