i9 11900 (basic)

[tsmspace]

Budget (including currency): 

Country: 

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: 

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 

 

so I'm looking at cpus , I want something that will run on a humble power supply but still be a good home pc. I've noticed that the i5 11600k still doesn't outperform the i9 11900 which runs at a feeble 2.5ghz. Overall, though, I'm going to have a conservative computer, I'm thinking like a 2060 and a board that won't overclock. 

 

specifically I've wishlisted: https://newegg.io/6b380b53

 

since that was what I looked at first, I thought I would hope for some commentary about why it is I will be better off with a different cpu, maybe more relevant in the future, but I don't plan to overclock and overall think that the 65w is also appealing, since I can probably run my pc on the same 500W psu I already have, in the case I have, maybe even the cooler will still fit. 

 

I do want to try and record some gameplay, I have a 4-joystick game controller for space games, and want to show it off,, but just some low quality youtube videos, so I don't think I will be limited in any way if I go with the above. But I don't know that much about what's hot and what's best for the money, while still being proud of the performance. Also, I have to entertain that I will be moving to windows 11 in the future, and I've heard that's going to slow me down a lot with the background security. 

 

 

[Dedayog]

Why would an i5 11600K outperform an i9 11900?  Redo your research, as the 11900 scales up to 5.2GHz with more cores than the 11600K.

 

With a 2060 as GPU, you don't need more than an 11400F to be honest.

[LIGISTX]

7 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

Budget (including currency): 

Country: 

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: 

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 

 

so I'm looking at cpus , I want something that will run on a humble power supply but still be a good home pc. I've noticed that the i5 11600k still doesn't outperform the i9 11900 which runs at a feeble 2.5ghz. Overall, though, I'm going to have a conservative computer, I'm thinking like a 2060 and a board that won't overclock. 

 

specifically I've wishlisted: https://newegg.io/6b380b53

 

since that was what I looked at first, I thought I would hope for some commentary about why it is I will be better off with a different cpu, maybe more relevant in the future, but I don't plan to overclock and overall think that the 65w is also appealing, since I can probably run my pc on the same 500W psu I already have, in the case I have, maybe even the cooler will still fit. 

 

I do want to try and record some gameplay, I have a 4-joystick game controller for space games, and want to show it off,, but just some low quality youtube videos, so I don't think I will be limited in any way if I go with the above. But I don't know that much about what's hot and what's best for the money, while still being proud of the performance. Also, I have to entertain that I will be moving to windows 11 in the future, and I've heard that's going to slow me down a lot with the background security. 

 

 

You should definitely be looking at 12th gen as opposed to 11th. Lots of performance improvements were made between them. 
 

Also, the 2.5 ghz base clock is relatively meaningless. The turbo clock speeds are what are actually useful info. 

[Pixelfie]

A 12700F should be priced similar and outperform the 11900. Or you could get a 12400F, which isn't too far behind and is also cheap.

 

For GPU, consider getting an RX 6600. Depending on what you use it for it can be faster, while using like half the power and being cheaper.

[tsmspace]

4 minutes ago, Pixelfie said:

A 12700F should be priced similar and outperform the 11900. Or you could get a 12400F, which isn't too far behind and is also cheap.

 

For GPU, consider getting an RX 6600. Depending on what you use it for it can be faster, while using like half the power and being cheaper.

so I'm to understand the future of internet security will be running lots of background gpu, which I wondered if maybe not having the integrated gpu might cost me? the uhd 750 isn't impressive but then again it is if it means much more efficient future of os. 

 

I'm always susceptible to unnecessary upgrades, but then again if years from now my boot is still smooth, it's worth it. 

[tsmspace]

11 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

You should definitely be looking at 12th gen as opposed to 11th. Lots of performance improvements were made between them. 
 

Also, the 2.5 ghz base clock is relatively meaningless. The turbo clock speeds are what are actually useful info. 

I guess it's partly just the price. I'm looking for middle ground. 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, tsmspace said:

so I'm to understand the future of internet security will be running lots of background gpu, which I wondered if maybe not having the integrated gpu might cost me? the uhd 750 isn't impressive but then again it is if it means much more efficient future of os. 

 

I'm always susceptible to unnecessary upgrades, but then again if years from now my boot is still smooth, it's worth it. 

What do you mean?  Internet security running background gpu?  Where do you hear this?

[tsmspace]

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

What do you mean?  Internet security running background gpu?  Where do you hear this?

i forget but youtube somewhere. Basically windows 11 internet security will be really complex and task a lot to the gpu. Sorry can't say for sure. 

[RONOTHAN##]

1 minute ago, tsmspace said:

I guess it's partly just the price. I'm looking for middle ground. 

11th gen isn't cheaper than 12th gen though. The price difference between a 12700F and a a B660M-A Pro (similar board to that Gigabyte Z590 board) and the 11900 and board is <$10, and the 12700F is in a different league of performance. If you want something cheaper, the 12600K exists for ~$240, that plus a $20 will be just fine. 

 

Also, before you ask, the rated TDPs on all of those chips is irrelevant, all of those chips will idle about the same power consumption, and under load all of them will violate the TDP thanks to turbo boost. 

 

Just now, tsmspace said:

i forget but youtube somewhere. Basically windows 11 internet security will be really complex and task a lot to the gpu. Sorry can't say for sure. 

Never heard of that before, I've got a feeling that it's misremembered or just a faulty source. Security stuff tasks the CPU if anything, and it's really not as bad as you might think it would be. Besides, if you really want it, the 12700F will have the 4 E cores that it can run on instead, which would be more than enough to handle anything like that. 

[LIGISTX]

11 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

I guess it's partly just the price. I'm looking for middle ground. 

12th gen is cheaper for more performance. As stated above you can get an i5 12th gen and it will be a good bit faster. 12th gen had a lot of IPC improvements. 
 

Also, I have never heard of GPU antivirus. Maybe some machine learning stuff will start to happen, but I have not heard of that happening anytime soon. 

[tsmspace]

3 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

11th gen isn't cheaper than 12th gen though. The price difference between a 12700F and a a B660M-A Pro (similar board to that Gigabyte Z590 board) and the 11900 and board is <$10, and the 12700F is in a different league of performance. If you want something cheaper, the 12600K exists for ~$240, that plus a $20 will be just fine. 

 

Also, before you ask, the rated TDPs on all of those chips is irrelevant, all of those chips will idle about the same power consumption, and under load all of them will violate the TDP thanks to turbo boost. 

 

Never heard of that before, I've got a feeling that it's misremembered or just a faulty source. Security stuff tasks the CPU if anything, and it's really not as bad as you might think it would be. Besides, if you really want it, the 12700F will have the 4 E cores that it can run on instead, which would be more than enough to handle anything like that. 

i see your 12700f cpubenchmark is very impressive. I have to go to work but I've added it to list

[jaslion]

9 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

i forget but youtube somewhere. Basically windows 11 internet security will be really complex and task a lot to the gpu. Sorry can't say for sure. 

Thats just not true. All the gpu does on the internet is accelerate media codecs. So basically decode video on the gpu instead of cpu which the igpu of a 11600k can easily do.

 

From what I ubderstand this is just gonna be an internet/office machine?

 

If so a i3 12100 is plenty. No need to overspend.

 

Also what 500w psu is it?

[tsmspace]

Just now, jaslion said:

Thats just not true. All the gpu does on the internet is accelerate media codecs. So basically decode video on the gpu instead of cpu which the igpu of a 11600k can easily do.

 

From what I ubderstand this is just gonna be an internet/office machine?

 

If so a i3 12100 is plenty. No need to overspend.

 

Also what 500w psu is it?

I would have to open it to see the psu, its a craigslist computer. 

 

I will play space games. I have a 4-joystick game controller for 6dof mastery, and want to show it off, so I also want to make some gaming videos. 

 

here's a video you can see I tried to set up a mirror that allows me to film all 4 joysticks at once. I need higher resolution on the webcam, though, and overall better editing solutions, including some knowledge.... 

 here's my project page I'm hoping to promote with the videos. https://hackaday.io/project/180884-4-joystick-6-axis-6-dof-game-controller

 

also, I want it to be able to play newer space titles as they come out, and without being at the back of the pack. Also, I want to experiment with VR, as it allows you to use your head to see out your windows, instead of joysticks or something. 

 

 

[jaslion]

10 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

I would have to open it to see the psu, its a craigslist computer. 

 

I will play space games. I have a 4-joystick game controller for 6dof mastery, and want to show it off, so I also want to make some gaming videos. 

 

here's a video you can see I tried to set up a mirror that allows me to film all 4 joysticks at once. I need higher resolution on the webcam, though, and overall better editing solutions, including some knowledge.... 

 here's my project page I'm hoping to promote with the videos. https://hackaday.io/project/180884-4-joystick-6-axis-6-dof-game-controller

 

also, I want it to be able to play newer space titles as they come out, and without being at the back of the pack. Also, I want to experiment with VR, as it allows you to use your head to see out your windows, instead of joysticks or something. 

 

 

Ok thats a lot more comprehensive.

 

For now I will assume the psu is bad and recommend a new one to keep things simple. Until more info is given.

 

So Im gonna treat this like a semi new build atm.

 

What is your budget?

 

What parts would you like to reuse (in detail please)

Then I can make a comprehensive list of parts and bring you the best possible pc.

 

On another note I see multiple systems in your description. Are any of those available to be used/upgraded?

 

[tsmspace]

4 hours ago, jaslion said:

Ok thats a lot more comprehensive.

 

For now I will assume the psu is bad and recommend a new one to keep things simple. Until more info is given.

 

So Im gonna treat this like a semi new build atm.

 

What is your budget?

 

What parts would you like to reuse (in detail please)

Then I can make a comprehensive list of parts and bring you the best possible pc.

 

On another note I see multiple systems in your description. Are any of those available to be used/upgraded?

 

So budget is up in the air, but im liking the 12700f recommendation, with the 100$ mboard. 

At this point i look to be reusing the psu. Its a 500w branded one from the gtx1050 era. I think its still good, one of those corsair or something from best buy. I can this eve be sure. I am open to replacing it based on the output demands of my ultimate upgrade to a nicer graphics, but for this purchase i plan to just roll the gtx1050ti into the new build and shop for graphics later on. 

 

So i plan to buy a cpu, ram, motherboard and possibly a psu, or possibly not. 

 

I will use the case, an ssd i already have, my fans are fine, probably the cooler is fine, its a tower. And the gtx 1050ti. 

 

So basically my wishlist now is the 12700f and a b660m pro. 

 

 

[jaslion]

8 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

Its a 500w branded one from the gtx1050 era. I think its still good

Don't do that until you let us know what it is. There is only 1 500w corsair unit and it's really not good.

 

What tower cooler? Lga 1700 is NOT compatible with any previous mounting hardware. That and the 12700 is a very hot chip.

 

For ram get some 3200mhz or faster cl16 ddr4 ram and make sure it's at least 2 sticks.

 

Psu plenty of options sounds like you are aiming for a 60's series card. So a rmx 650w, msi mpg 650w or enermax revolution d.f. 650w will do nicely.

[OrdinaryPhil]

5 hours ago, LIGISTX said:

You should definitely be looking at 12th gen as opposed to 11th. Lots of performance improvements were made between them. 
 

Also, the 2.5 ghz base clock is relatively meaningless. The turbo clock speeds are what are actually useful info. 

Disagree.

My current build is an i7-12700 non-K with a P-Core base clock of 2.1GHz and an E-Core base clock of 1.6GHz. I've paired it with a 3060ti and it does all my gaming at 1440p 165Hz at native refresh rate and resolution with no scaling nonsense.

I would normally just disable TurboBoost completely but in this instance I just played with the multipliers in the BIOS because I get no real benefit to running at 4.8GHz in gaming... with my current setting I only turbo up to 3.4GHz.

There is no need for an i9 for gaming unless you trying to game at 4K+ resolutions and are pairing it with a GPU like a 308ti or better.

I think the i5 will be just fine for basic gaming at 1440p and lower.

[LIGISTX]

31 minutes ago, OrdinaryPhil said:

Disagree.

My current build is an i7-12700 non-K with a P-Core base clock of 2.1GHz and an E-Core base clock of 1.6GHz. I've paired it with a 3060ti and it does all my gaming at 1440p 165Hz at native refresh rate and resolution with no scaling nonsense.

I would normally just disable TurboBoost completely but in this instance I just played with the multipliers in the BIOS because I get no real benefit to running at 4.8GHz in gaming... with my current setting I only turbo up to 3.4GHz.

There is no need for an i9 for gaming unless you trying to game at 4K+ resolutions and are pairing it with a GPU like a 308ti or better.

I think the i5 will be just fine for basic gaming at 1440p and lower.

What exactly do you disagree with..? 
 

I am saying get a 12th gen over an 11th gen because the price won’t be much different, and it will be much faster. 
 

As far as turbo goes, why would you turn turbo off? Your just wasting money/not getting what you paid for. This is why the base clock is a meaningless number; CPU’s list a base clock speed, but that speed has almost no bearing on the performance of the CPU. The turbo speeds and the amount of cores are what matter, shopping by the base clock speed is completely misleading since that isn’t the speed the chip will run at (unless you disable turbo boost, but, why would you do that..?). 

[OrdinaryPhil]

7 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

What exactly do you disagree with..?

I disagree with you that the Base clock is meaningless.

 

 

8 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

As far as turbo goes, why would you turn turbo off? Your just wasting money/not getting what you paid for. This is why the base clock is a meaningless number; CPU’s list a base clock speed, but that speed has almost no bearing on the performance of the CPU. The turbo speeds and the amount of cores are what matter, shopping by the base clock speed is completely misleading since that isn’t the speed the chip will run at (unless you disable turbo boost, but, why would you do that..?). 

I disable turbo boost because the difference between gaming with it enabled vs disabled is 0 FPS in my current rig. So I can either run my CPU at 65w or at 180w and get the same results? Why would I not disable it? I'm getting exactly what I paid for... a modern CPU that can game well and at low temps, so the rest of my system stays cool. It's easier on all my other components from the VRMs on the main board to the GPU which benefits from a much lower ambient case temp.

[LIGISTX]

12 minutes ago, OrdinaryPhil said:

I disagree with you that the Base clock is meaningless.

 

 

I disable turbo boost because the difference between gaming with it enabled vs disabled is 0 FPS in my current rig. So I can either run my CPU at 65w or at 180w and get the same results? Why would I not disable it? I'm getting exactly what I paid for... a modern CPU that can game well and at low temps, so the rest of my system stays cool. It's easier on all my other components from the VRMs on the main board to the GPU which benefits from a much lower ambient case temp.

The base clock is meaningless because looking at that number without looking at turbo clocks provides no context for what your actually paying for. Your paying for increase turbo frequency… 

 

To compare different SKU’s and use their base clock as a determining factor as OP seemed to have been doing, is not at all telling the full story. Relegating a 12th gen chip to “only 2.5ghz” is not at all understanding what the chip is capable of, or designed to do. Comparing the turbo clocks is what should be considered to understand what your actually paying for. 
 

As far as turning turbo off, most people enjoy getting the performance they paid for; personally I want my system to be as response and snappy as possible at all times, which means more GHz… also, there is no way the system will use more watts and not produce more FPS - it’s not a 0 FPS difference if it’s using more power. The PC is not going to draw more power and not do any more computations with that power. Yes, increasing the speed increases the power non-linearly, so you will see less and less gain the faster it goes with more power draw increasing faster and faster as you gain GHz… but more CPU cycles will produce more FPS. The only way it won’t is if you have a GPU bottleneck, in which case the CPU will not be drawing max power, and will only run fast enough and pull enough wattage to drive the GPU. There is always a bottleneck in every system (obviously…), but your CPU isn’t going to run at full speed and full wattage if it’s not actually doing something, like in this case, gain you FPS. 
 

If you would rather not see that gain for the heat and power increase associated, that’s fair. I would normally say restrict your GPU’s power consumption via software like afterburner if your in a easy to run game and you have no need to get 300+ FPS… just reduce your GPU power target which will force the clocks down, and the GPU is where you will save more heat and electricity since GPU’s draw more power by a large percent. Also, that wont lead to you seeing slower system performance in general since the CPU will still be able to run at full speed… also you can then change the GPU’s power target on the fly based on the game your in, so when you need more power it’s just a button click away.

[tsmspace]

6 hours ago, jaslion said:

Ok thats a lot more comprehensive.

 

For now I will assume the psu is bad and recommend a new one to keep things simple. Until more info is given.

 

So Im gonna treat this like a semi new build atm.

 

What is your budget?

 

What parts would you like to reuse (in detail please)

Then I can make a comprehensive list of parts and bring you the best possible pc.

 

On another note I see multiple systems in your description. Are any of those available to be used/upgraded?

 

Im pretty sure, i didnt look, its an evga 500w. 

 

So the wishlist has a corsair vengeance 32g ram, i7 12700f, and a b660m pro. 

 

I will use the gtx 1050ti at first, and decide on the graphics as its affordable for me. I wonder the best wattage but seems with the 70w gtx 1050ti a 500w psu is adequate. I do have an old 1000w psu but its large. 

I guess the cpu is 125w, the gpu is 70w, and then everything else should still be under 500 after those two. Those three components are under 600 on the newegg wishlist. It would be a monster upgrade for me. However,,, i do want to have it for a long time, so the minimalist approach may be less appealing than so far listed. If i thought i could still have a monstrous upgrade that shakes the earth but increase my value ratio, i might be interested, but my current 17 4790k is really old, and still runs well,,, so i like the idea that a 12700f will stand up as a 10 year pc. 

[OrdinaryPhil]

7 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

The base clock is meaningless because looking at that number without looking at turbo clocks provides no context for what your actually paying for. Your paying for increase turbo frequency… 

 

To compare different SKU’s and use their base clock as a determining factor as OP seemed to have been doing, is not at all telling the full story. Relegating a 12th gen chip to “only 2.5ghz” is not at all understanding what the chip is capable of, or designed to do. Comparing the turbo clocks is what should be considered to understand what your actually paying for. 
 

As far as turning turbo off, most people enjoy getting the performance they paid for; personally I want my system to be as response and snappy as possible at all times, which means more GHz… also, there is no way the system will use more watts and not produce more FPS - it’s not a 0 FPS difference if it’s using more power. The PC is not going to draw more power and not do any more computations with that power. Yes, increasing the speed increases the power non-linearly, so you will see less and less gain the faster it goes with more power draw increasing faster and faster as you gain GHz… but more CPU cycles will produce more FPS. The only way it won’t is if you have a GPU bottleneck, in which case the CPU will not be drawing max power, and will only run fast enough and pull enough wattage to drive the GPU. There is always a bottleneck in every system (obviously…), but your CPU isn’t going to run at full speed and full wattage if it’s not actually doing something, like in this case, gain you FPS. 
 

If you would rather not see that gain for the heat and power increase associated, that’s fair. I would normally say restrict your GPU’s power consumption via software like afterburner if your in a easy to run game and you have no need to get 300+ FPS… just reduce your GPU power target which will force the clocks down, and the GPU is where you will save more heat and electricity since GPU’s draw more power by a large percent. Also, that wont lead to you seeing slower system performance in general since the CPU will still be able to run at full speed… also you can then change the GPU’s power target on the fly based on the game your in, so when you need more power it’s just a button click away.

I think we're running away with the thread here. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that every CPU purchase is based off the highest turbo clock speed. This is why SKUs other than the K series exist. For the overclockers and enthusiasts that want to see big numbers on synthetic benchmarks, you have the K series that boost super high.

But in the practical use case of gaming, the benefits of super high boost clocks are greatly diminished. You're thinking was correct 20+ years ago... the jump from a 286 to a 386 was huge, and a 486 was even better since each 100MHz was a dramatic increase is real-world performance that was visible in games.

It's not 2007 anymore - Windows runs smooth as butter on a low-end i3 CPU.

Allowing my CPU to run at higher speeds does not provide any realistic benefit. It's not making the OS any more responsive, and while I could potentially get more FPS (going from the 300+ I'm already capable of to something more abstract like 400) It would all be meaningless since I am using a 165Hz monitor. I'd be using that extra power and getting nothing for it.

I could have gotten an "lower end" CPU like an i5-12600k and saved a few bucks.. but that would actually run hotter than my i7-12700, so I made the choice to optimize my performance-per-watt and get the i7.

[OrdinaryPhil]

5 minutes ago, tsmspace said:

I guess the cpu is 125w, the gpu is 70w, and then everything else should still be under 500 after those two. Those three components are under 600 on the newegg wishlist. It would be a monster upgrade for me. However,,, i do want to have it for a long time, so the minimalist approach may be less appealing than so far listed. If i thought i could still have a monstrous upgrade that shakes the earth but increase my value ratio, i might be interested, but my current 17 4790k is really old, and still runs well,,, so i like the idea that a 12700f will stand up as a 10 year pc. 

The i7-12700F you mentioned is no 125w. It's a 65w CPU at base clock, and a 180w CPU when turbo'd to its maximum clock. When calculating the right PSU to get, I'd advise using the 180w figure. Add the 75w from your 1050ti and you're up to 255w with just 2 components. That doesn't include your storage drive(s), your fans, (CPU & Chasis) or any other peripherals you connect to the PC. Remember that anything you connect USB is being powered by your PSU as well...

500w is always going to be tight in a gaming-focused build.

 

 

[LIGISTX]

1 hour ago, OrdinaryPhil said:

I think we're running away with the thread here. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that every CPU purchase is based off the highest turbo clock speed. This is why SKUs other than the K series exist. For the overclockers and enthusiasts that want to see big numbers on synthetic benchmarks, you have the K series that boost super high.

But in the practical use case of gaming, the benefits of super high boost clocks are greatly diminished. You're thinking was correct 20+ years ago... the jump from a 286 to a 386 was huge, and a 486 was even better since each 100MHz was a dramatic increase is real-world performance that was visible in games.

It's not 2007 anymore - Windows runs smooth as butter on a low-end i3 CPU.

Allowing my CPU to run at higher speeds does not provide any realistic benefit. It's not making the OS any more responsive, and while I could potentially get more FPS (going from the 300+ I'm already capable of to something more abstract like 400) It would all be meaningless since I am using a 165Hz monitor. I'd be using that extra power and getting nothing for it.

I could have gotten an "lower end" CPU like an i5-12600k and saved a few bucks.. but that would actually run hotter than my i7-12700, so I made the choice to optimize my performance-per-watt and get the i7.

I suppose the difference here is I do things that actually stress my CPU, like play demanding games, and photo edit. I see real world gains from CPU overclocking, for gaming, and “workstation” type work such as heavy photo editing. I couldn’t even imagine how laborious that would become if I turned off turbo boost… 

 

I agree, getting 400 fps is pointless, and in games where that is the case I turn the power target and memory on my GPU down as far as EVGA precision will go to drastically reduce wattage and temps. 
 

I also disagree with it being better to buy the 12700… if you were worried about wattage draw, say at 3.4 ghz the wattage difference between the two is no more then 10 watts at the most, seeing as there is less cores being driven (and the 10600k may actually have better ghz per voltage, which would make it more efficient per watt, but let’s just ignore that…), it would save you ~9 dollars a year in electricity if you were to be at a 10 watt disparity for 6 hours every day of that entire year at 40 cents per kWh. So it would take over 4 years to recoup the money, and that’s not even accounting for the fact the 12600k could likely run at the same speed with less wattage since it theoretically has a better voltage table, and it definitely has less cores which will use less power. 
 

Again, looking at the max turbo speed is important. It’s a determination of what the chip is capable of, and for most people that is what matters. In most games I struggle to get 100fps which is what my monitor Hz is, so I lean on Gsync to smooth things out as much as possible when things dip down to the 60’s and 70’s. I’ll l take every possible advantage I can get. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[OrdinaryPhil]

lol. Yeah... that's the difference. Your PC used for more demanding stuff. Right. It's special...

I'm glad you like your PC and that it meets your needs. Kudos. You've failed to provide a compelling reason to spend 180w of CPU power and dumping all of that as excess heat into your system when you can achieve the same results with 65-85w of CPU power. Keeping your CPU boosted puts a lot of stress on your VRMs, causing them to create more heat as well.

Again... if you really like those big numbers on the synthetic benchmarks then yes, push your system as hard as you can.

Regarding photo editing... you can edit photos in PS on a potato. If you were actually doing regular photography you'd know that 99% of that work is actually done in Lightroom, where you can edit batches of images and apply changes to color maps (among other things) in bulk. And the difference between that task being performed at 3.4GHz vs being performed at 5.0Ghz is what... some fractions of a second difference. Who cares? Why stress your components. My wife is running an i9-9700 on her photography workstation and the difference between turbo on/off is barely measurable is not something she notices. You know what she does notice? The CPU fans spinning at 2500RM instead of 1000... the extra heat it pumps into her office over hours of editing a wedding shoot.

I don't have enough details to explain why you're struggling to hit 100+ FPS in your games. I don't know what display resolution you're targeting or what GPU you have, or any other system details. Hell I don't even know what game you're taking about.

But what I do know is that my i7-12700 paired with a 3060ti has never dropped below the 165FPS target that matches my monitor's refresh rate at 1440p. Not in any game. And I am not making concessions on visual settings - the only things I disable are settings such as motion blur, screen shake and other gimmicks that I personally think detract from my experience.

So again... if I can run games and keep my CPU temps at a chilly 58c... or get the exact same experience and have those temps jump up into the high 70s... as well as put more stress on the other components, why would I bother? Work smarter, not harder.

In my experience the "sweet spot" for gaming is between 3.4GHz and 3.8Ghz when paired with the right GPU for your display's resolution and refresh rate. Going beyond that is just wasting energy and over-working your equipment.