4 ms·

Maybe i'm missing why it doesn't matter. Ryzen runs at 4.5 base clock, TR Pro runs at 2.5 base clock, upon booting up nothing is happening so each cpu runs at t

Maybe i'm missing why it doesn't matter. Ryzen runs at 4.5 base clock, TR Pro runs at 2.5 base clock, upon booting up nothing is happening so each cpu runs at their base clock. I open something like visual studio that isn't too intensive so each cpu doesn't realize it needs to boost. Won't the ryzen with 4.5 base clock feel snappier than the 2.5 one when vs loads? When a pretty big task (compiling, rendering) activates the scheduler and causes the cpu to boost to their respective 5 ghz or w/e, then yeah the numbers would be the same, but they don't be at the beginning when i'm dragging windows around and right clicking on stuff in visual studio. I don't believe this feeling is reflected in the scores.

coder543 3y ago
No. None of what you're writing is accurate. No processor made in the last decade will ever idle at the base clock. Any modern processor idles far, far lower than that, approximately 1Ghz, maybe even lower. Idling at multiple gigahertz would be a huge waste of energy. The minimum clock speed is not correlated to the "base clock" at all. It takes tens of milliseconds to reach the boost clock: https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 The base clock is entirely irrelevant to everything you are talking about. Please reference my earlier comment for the meaning of "base clock": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293
- Racing0461 3y ago
  Interesting, i'l l have to do more research here since the reason i went with my current setup is based on this thinking.
- StillBored 3y ago
  While technically correct for longer time frames, setting a performance governor on both windows and linux basically means that it comes out of idle at the max allowable frequency. In order to achieve this it basically means that idle isn't adjusting the clock rates (to avoid the transition latencies) for idle times less than 2x those latencies. Depending on the core/firmware/etc it may be gating the clock, or clock skipping, which can save some power And yes it can waste energy you can measure with the your battery monitor (or UPS/PDU) but its also possible to measure the interrupt handling latency/etc, and for some cores it can make a very noticeable difference to desktop latency if you happen to be sensitive to such things. While I've posted elsewhere about clamping the clock rate to save power, I also do the converse when plugged in by cutting off the bottom 2/3rds of the frequency range. This results in a far more responsive desktop in linux and even windows to a lesser extent.

coder543 3y ago

No. None of what you're writing is accurate. No processor made in the last decade will ever idle at the base clock. Any modern processor idles far, far lower than that, approximately 1Ghz, maybe even lower. Idling at multiple gigahertz would be a huge waste of energy. The minimum clock speed is not correlated to the "base clock" at all. It takes tens of milliseconds to reach the boost clock: https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 The base clock is entirely irrelevant to everything you are talking about. Please reference my earlier comment for the meaning of "base clock": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293

Racing0461 3y ago
Interesting, i'l l have to do more research here since the reason i went with my current setup is based on this thinking.
StillBored 3y ago
While technically correct for longer time frames, setting a performance governor on both windows and linux basically means that it comes out of idle at the max allowable frequency. In order to achieve this it basically means that idle isn't adjusting the clock rates (to avoid the transition latencies) for idle times less than 2x those latencies. Depending on the core/firmware/etc it may be gating the clock, or clock skipping, which can save some power And yes it can waste energy you can measure with the your battery monitor (or UPS/PDU) but its also possible to measure the interrupt handling latency/etc, and for some cores it can make a very noticeable difference to desktop latency if you happen to be sensitive to such things. While I've posted elsewhere about clamping the clock rate to save power, I also do the converse when plugged in by cutting off the bottom 2/3rds of the frequency range. This results in a far more responsive desktop in linux and even windows to a lesser extent.