Okay so I have some unexpected results for ya'll.
Setup:
2400G vs 1700X
16gb 3200mhz ddr4
GTX1080 Strix
500gb 960evo nvme
Cinebench:
788 vs 1493
Unigine Valley 1080p medium setting:
3970 vs 4463
94,9 vs 106,7 fps
Unigine Valley 4k Max settings:
1258 vs. 1270
30,1 vs 30,8
Unigine Superposition 1080 medium settings:
15097 vs 15595
Unigine Superposition 4k Max settings:
6394 vs 6481
CPU Temperature max
86°C vs 81°C
So as you can see the 1700X at stock speed not only runs cooler (its sodered while 2400G is not) but also runs faster in both 1080p medium settings and 4k scenarios. I totally didn't expect these results tbh, as the 1700X clocks like 200-300mhz lower. Cinebench is kinda disappointing though as the score didn't double for some reason.
Thanks!
-
@Dackzy Node202 and already over 80°C naaaah, I'll pass
@manikyath didn't think that would make up for a couple hundred megahertz in gaming but apparently it does.
-
wendell once proposed the crude math that 1MB cache (cant recall if that was L2 or L3) equals 100MHz.
as well as the extra cores, even if they arent used by the specific worklod, allow windows to offload stuff.
and for example on the side of valley, the limited pcie bandwidth of the 2400G may be playing up.