Benchmark Results: Audio/Video And Compression Programs
Apple's iTunes is single-threaded, so our effective clock rates range from 3.9 to 4.7 GHz. Naturally, adding cores does nothing for performance in this app; the only way to speed it up is to push faster overclocks.
The same goes for Lame.
HandBrake is threaded, but for every additional 100 MHz bin of frequency you give it, performance does continue to scale pretty well.
MainConcept is similarly well-threaded, though it also continues to scale as you give it incrementally-faster clock rates.
Compared with WinZip and WinRAR, 7-Zip is both more efficient and faster. In the above chart and each of the following two, we're compressing the same amount of data. But because it does its job so efficiently already, overclocking doesn't affect the performance of 7-Zip as significantly as either of the other compression apps.
WinRAR, though well-threaded as well, enjoys a nice speed-up from our overclocking effort.
WinZip, which isn't as well-threaded, naturally sees more of a gain due to higher clock rates, though it still takes longer than the other tools to complete our workload.
Nice to know Intel doesn't just set the stock clock speed for just performance!
Did someone at Intel tell you that was the reason for a lower Turbo Boost limit, or did you just assume it?
I think we should be careful of this kind of guess at another person's, or company's, reasoning. There could be some other cause for the limit - for example, they will obviously sell it for a lower price, so wouldn't a possible reason be they have looser binning specs to allow for chips that wouldn't make it under more strenuous tests through? (Remember, Intel, or any CPU manufacturer, doesn't warrant the product based on what it can be pushed to, and is generally going to provide it at a clock rate they feel is safe over time to guarantee.)
I'm certainly not saying it is a bad assumption, what you said makes sense to me, but I do think there are enough other reasonable possibilities that I wouldn't have stated it as a fact unless I knew it to be.
I do think articles like this are very important; those of us who overclock, especially when we turn off all the power-saving features in hopes of reaching that max stable a CPU can do, should be aware of how much money we are spending if we keep said OC. It's more than just the high end cooling solution.
The people that bash higher capacity PSUs could also stand to learn a thing or two, here. An overclocked CPU can require a huge amount of peak power over and above what a stock CPU needs (349W measured here). An overclocked Sandy Bridge-E and an overclocked GTX 580 could require a peak power of 650W just considering those 2 components!
A Kill A Watt or similar device is a great way to measure how much you actually spend a month operating your computer. You might be surprised.
Tom's Parallel Universe Hardware.