> That seems reasonable across microarch versions, but presumably is totally reasonable within a product-release-cycle Sure, but the performance doesn't scale

> That seems reasonable across microarch versions, but presumably is totally reasonable within a product-release-cycle Sure, but the performance doesn't scale linearly with the frequency. So how can we account for that? Also, the i9 10900F and i9-10850K have the same turbo. How long can they sustain in for? On how many cores? What frequency is left afterward? This gets even weirder with more recent technologies that push the frequency higher depending on power delivery stability and thermal constraints. I agree; the frequency is indicative of performance within a product lifecycle. But I find it too meaningless to give an approximate delta on the performance. And this assumes the process you are running is not too much memory bottlenecked or I/O bound and this delta in performance can be measured. (And the setup can sustain higher thermals). While not perfect, I prefer to look up benchmarks that resemble my workload and call it a day. Processors are too complicated for me to try to compare with simple numbers.