Underclocking to the point a cheaper CPU is better

[Chef-009]

Hello,

 

If I were to underclock a Ryzen 3950x (16c/32t, 3,5GHz, about 145W max.) to have the same power consumption as the 3600x (6c/12t, 3,8GHz, about 76W max.), would I get about the same performance? Even if they're using the same architecture, the answer is probably no since the corecount on the 3950x is much higher.

But at what point becomes the coreclock so low it evens out with the 3600x performance wise?

Or in other words: At what point becomes frequency stronger than the amount of cores?

 

I'm asking this because of the 3950x laptop video LTT made a few days ago. The TDP of that machine was 65 Watts if I'm correct so the 3950x was underclocked. And I had the question if they wouldn't be better of with a cheaper CPU using less cores but then at a higher frequency (I suppose). Probably not, I'm sure the manifacturers tested it. Otherwise they wouldn't have done it because it would be a waste of money, OR they just did it because of the marketing.)

 

 

Please don't ask for the point of it or try to change the concept / come up with ideas that evade the root of this problem. Please just answer the question.

 

Thanks in advance :)

[Nocte]

6 minutes ago, Chef-009 said:

At what point becomes frequency stronger than the amount of cores?

Whenever your workload relies more on single-core than multi-core.

[TrigrH]

You can disable cores on the 3950x and get the benefit of better silicon at the same core count, giving you more power budget to OC. Why would you do this? see the reply above me.

[Chef-009]

Thanks, both of you