Will CPU's that can overclock higher also perform better vs. CPU's that overclock lower when not overclocked?

[Kubaksteen]

Forgive me if this is a really silly question, but I was just wondering about this.

For example, take a i9 7900x that has been pre-tested to reach 4.9Ghz by say Silicon Lottery, Der8auer or similar, and a pre-tested i9 7900x that can hardly be overclocked, say maybe 100Mhz beyond the standard turboclock frequency.

Does it then mean that the latter is actually quite a poor CPU specimen, and that, when both are not overclocked, it will perform worse than the binned CPU that is tested to be able to reach 4.9Ghz overclocked?

 

[Math Geek]

at the same clock speeds both will perform the same. once overclocked the higher speed will perform the fastest.

and yes the one that won't overclock very well is a poor example of the chip. we call it the silicone lottery since a normal retail box could have a good over-clocker or a poor one in it. this is why companies that buy a bunch and test them for how well they can overclock can charge so much for ones that do well. you pay for knowing it will oc well rather than taking the chance with a random retail box.

if you are staying at stock clocks then even the worst example will be the same as the best one and not worth the extra cost. this is why there are so many different models of each chip. all the various i7 chips at different speeds are tested and sorted based on how well they handle voltage and speed settings. good examples get to be "k" models. not so good ones are locked and set to lower clock rates. worse ones have the HT disabled and are sold as i5 models and so on. if you want to really overclock then spending extra to know for sure you have a good one is worth it to some people.

you may have heard folks talking about companies "binning" chips. this means they test them themselves and save the best ones for special parts. for example the i7-8086k special edition chips intel put out a bit ago were simply binned i7-8700k cpu's they knew would be able to handle the higher clock rates.

 

[Kubaksteen]

at the same clock speeds both will perform the same. once overclocked the higher speed will perform the fastest.

and yes the one that won't overclock very well is a poor example of the chip. we call it the silicone lottery since a normal retail box could have a good over-clocker or a poor one in it. this is why companies that buy a bunch and test them for how well they can overclock can charge so much for ones that do well. you pay for knowing it will oc well rather than taking the chance with a random retail box.

if you are staying at stock clocks then even the worst example will be the same as the best one and not worth the extra cost. this is why there are so many different models of each chip. all the various i7 chips at different speeds are tested and sorted based on how well they handle voltage and speed settings. good examples get to be "k" models. not so good ones are locked and set to lower clock rates. worse ones have the HT disabled and are sold as i5 models and so on. if you want to really overclock then spending extra to know for sure you have a good one is worth it to some people.

you may have heard folks talking about companies "binning" chips. this means they test them themselves and save the best ones for special parts. for example the i7-8086k special edition chips intel put out a bit ago were simply binned i7-8700k cpu's they knew would be able to handle the higher clock rates.

Thanks for the answer (and for not laughing at it ) Yeah, I was mainly considering the pre-tested i9 7900x by Der8auer because he uses a much better thermal paste (thermal grizzly conductonaut; ok, maybe that's technically not a 'paste') than the standard one intel uses for those chips (tested temps dropped by between 10° to 20° celcius vs. the stock paste). Overclocking ability would be definitely be a great extra for me, but mostly I like to keep my chip as cool and quiet as possible and I've seen these 7900x CPU's are running very hot at stock speeds. Then again, I've also read that liquid metal solutions will need to be replaced after 2 years or so due to drying up/hardening, so that would be a significant downside again, so perhaps a stock version is the way to go after all... First world problems I guess.

 

[Math Geek]

those chips do run hot and the better thermal compound helps a lot for sure. but as you're aware you will have to replace it down the line. take a look at some reviews and benchmarks and see what any extra speed actually gets you. is it worth the extra cost and trouble for that extra bit of performance? that's the question to answer for yourself.