vivster said:
I think you can extrapolate that quite well from the overclocked Sandybridge. Looks like roughly 20-30% or so. But it actually wouldn't really be fair to look at it like that. Going wide is just as important as going deep and thankfully Intel finally agrees after 10 years. |
Well. 5Ghz seems to be the good upper-ceiling for all Intel CPU's when you throw overclocking into the mix, so architectural improvements may matter to someone who is happy to run their Sandy-Bridge processor @5ghz or a Kaby-Lake @ 5ghz.
Plus Sandy-Bridge CPU's love memory bandwidth, lots of low-latency, high clocked DDR3 can close the gap.
| Captain_Yuri said: Mmm yea now that would be cool. Specially since some cpus are at 4.6ghz while others are at 5.1ghz. |
The 2500K has a 3.3Ghz base clock, 3.7Ghz boost clock... But those chips can overclock like a bat out of hell, mostly because they came out at a time when Intel were still using solder rather than cheap-shit thermal paste between the die and integrated heat spreader.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
