Does higher clocked CPU last longer?

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

This is probably a super stupid question, I just couldn't find anything online that said for certain. Would a CPU that is clocked decently higher than another CPU of the same generation and architecture last longer in terms of updates to programs and the operating system, regardless of RAM? I sell computers and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misleading customers by claiming that investing in a faster cpu would increase the lifespan of the computer in its ability to handle updates.

[The Sloth]

Just now, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

last longer in terms of updates to programs and the operating syst

you will get bit more life out of it, yes in that regards. 

[Damascus]

IMO cores are a better lifespan indicator than clocks.  A 2600 (4c 8t 3.5ghz locked) kicks the i5 2500ks (4c 4t, way higher clocks with the ability to OC to 5ghz or so) teeth in in terms of modern games.

 

The i5 7600k will be much the same way when compared to a 7700 (non k) r5 1400/1600 etc in a few years.  Apps are going core crazy right now.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

IMO cores are a better lifespan indicator than clocks.

tell that to FX, cores and IPC is more like it. 

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

IMO cores are a better lifespan indicator than clocks.  A 2600 (4c 8t 3.5ghz locked) kicks the i5 2500ks (4c 4t, way higher clocks with the ability to OC to 5ghz or so) teeth in in terms of modern games.

 

The i5 7600k will be much the same way when compared to a 7700 (non k) r5 1400/1600 etc in a few years.  Apps are going core crazy right now.

But how common is it that a program is able to add more parallelization than it already has?

[Damascus]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

tell that to FX, cores and IPC is more like it. 

lol FX was so bad! I do agree though, you want the balance between cores/clocks/ipc/power draw

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

8 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

you will get bit more life out of it, yes in that regards. 

From how I understand it, updates that add features increase the amount of instructions the CPU has to read, so it stands to reason that eventually a slower clocked CPU wouldn't be able to run a program after a number of updates whereas a faster CPU still could.

[Damascus]

1 minute ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

But how common is it that a program is able to add more parallelization than it already has?

Depends on the profam m8.  Revit uses more cores then it used to, most big and medium sized games and most productivity software will be getting many core usage in the next few years (new releases, not old titles)

[Damascus]

1 minute ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

From how I understand it, updates that add features increase the amount of instructions the CPU has to read, so it stands to reason that eventually a slower clocked CPU wouldn't be able to run a program after a number of updates whereas a faster CPU still could.

Actually AFAIK cpu speed will never stop a cpu from doing something, just doing it quickly/well.  My buddy had a 775 cpu at 3.0GHz with 2c 2t and it could run programs that only took 2 cores - extremely slowl.  

 

What it couldn't do is launch games/doftware that require more than 2 threads

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Depends on the profam m8.  Revit uses more cores then it used to, most big and medium sized games and most productivity software will be getting many core usage in the next few years (new releases, not old titles)

Sure, but not necessarily programs the common person would use. I've generally been recommending higher clocked CPUs than multi-core ones for basic consumers.

[The Sloth]

Just now, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

I've generally been recommending higher clocked CPUs than multi-core ones for basic consumers.

not that clean cut, so many factors will come into play, for example a ryzen 1700 will beat an i7 7700k at productivity while a 7700k will beat ryzen at gaming. 

[Damascus]

Just now, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

Sure, but not necessarily programs the common person would use. I've generally been recommending higher clocked CPUs than multi-core ones for basic consumers.

What are they doing with these pcs?  If it's basic office work a pentium G4560 will be fine for eons, my work still uses first gen i5 650s in our pcs (slow as hell but get the job done)

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

Actually AFAIK cpu speed will never stop a cpu from doing something, just doing it quickly/well.  My buddy had a 775 cpu at 3.0GHz with 2c 2t and it could run programs that only took 2 cores - extremely slowl.  

 

What it couldn't do is launch games/doftware that require more than 2 threads

So are you saying it could technically run any modern program that only utilized 2 threads?

[Damascus]

2 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

So are you saying it could technically run any modern program that only utilized 2 threads?

Sure, he even played Overwatch at like 20 fps.  His waifu uses it as a fb an mine craft machine now 

 

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not that clean cut, so many factors will come into play, for example a ryzen 1700 will beat an i7 7700k at productivity while a 7700k will beat ryzen at gaming. 

Oh sure and I make sure to ask what exactly they're using it for before I recommend one type of cpu or the other, but for the person who isn't multitasking too much, or running intensive software, I usually lean of faster/fewer cores. Especially where battery life is important.

[Drak3]

Higher clocks correlate to longer usable lifespan if IPC is right. RAM speed and timings will play into this, but not by a huge amount judging by the way things are now.

 

However, an FX9590 @ 5.5GHz won't last nearly as long as a 7700K at 4.5GHz, because IPC on the FX isn't that good.

[Godlygamer23]

11 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

From how I understand it, updates that add features increase the amount of instructions the CPU has to read, so it stands to reason that eventually a slower clocked CPU wouldn't be able to run a program after a number of updates whereas a faster CPU still could.

Something here to understand is that clock speed is not everything. Clock speed paired with IPC gives overall performance of the chip. Features can add more strain to the CPU, but it's only when those features are actually used that additional instructions are executed. 

[Get-In-Da-Robot]

2 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Something here to understand is that clock speed is not everything. Clock speed paired with IPC gives overall performance of the chip. Features can add more strain to the CPU, but it's only when those features are actually used that additional instructions are executed. 

Yeah I understand IPC, that's why I was wondering how the situation would pan out against two CPUs of the same architecture. Would a program ever keep itself from being able to run on a computer if it detected the CPU would not be fast enough to run some of its features properly, regardless of if they were used?

[The Sloth]

12 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

Oh sure and I make sure to ask what exactly they're using it for before I recommend one type of cpu or the other, but for the person who isn't multitasking too much, or running intensive software, I usually lean of faster/fewer cores. Especially where battery life is important.

a laptop will be tradeoffs, for an average person, a Thinkpad with i5u CPU will be more than enough. 

[Godlygamer23]

6 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

Would a program ever keep itself from being able to run on a computer if it detected the CPU would not be fast enough to run some of its features properly, regardless of if they were used?

That's up to the developers, and programs do have minimum system requirements that have to be followed, and if they're not followed, then I imagine the program simply won't run, or even install.

[Damascus]

13 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

Yeah I understand IPC, that's why I was wondering how the situation would pan out against two CPUs of the same architecture. Would a program ever keep itself from being able to run on a computer if it detected the CPU would not be fast enough to run some of its features properly, regardless of if they were used?

I honestly doubt clocks/ic will be an issue until there is some massive paradigm shift that makes everything currently available completely obsolete

 

Imagine intel manages to make a cpu that runs at like 10-15ghz while not consuming too much heat and having IPC miles better then anything available now, at consumer prices.  That would demolish EVERY CHIP in existence as the basic chip of the lineup would be a pentium running at like 8ghz - if compared to what we have it would shred everything, no matter an i7 7700k or a r7 1700, even an i9 7950x or TR 1950x would be safe.

[kalnick]

41 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

This is probably a super stupid question, I just couldn't find anything online that said for certain. Would a CPU that is clocked decently higher than another CPU of the same generation and architecture last longer in terms of updates to programs and the operating system, regardless of RAM? I sell computers and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misleading customers by claiming that investing in a faster cpu would increase the lifespan of the computer in its ability to handle updates.

So many things affect how one cpu vs another will perform in any given program and this can even change over time has new versions become optimized for newer cpus and like Ryzen for example.

 

Easiest way to look at it is not how long a cpu with last because they last for ever and will be able to run the same programs today that they ran 5 years ago regardless of the cpu speed. Higher the clock rate the faster it can run the program.  An i5-6600k and i5-6400 will "last "just as long, one will just always be faster. This goes for any i3 or i7 when compared to another in its same generation. The extra cores and threads will make an i7 more future proof as more applications are optimized for multi core/thread cpus.

 

First question is: What do you want to do with it? This tells your core/thread needs

Second question should be: How fast do you want it? This tells you the clock speed to go for.

 

 

 

 

[kalnick]

26 minutes ago, Get-In-Da-Robot said:

Yeah I understand IPC, that's why I was wondering how the situation would pan out against two CPUs of the same architecture. Would a program ever keep itself from being able to run on a computer if it detected the CPU would not be fast enough to run some of its features properly, regardless of if they were used?

A developer could build in code to say don't run on cpu id xxx. Like Netflix 4k for example.

Newer versions of programs may require instruction sets that perhaps didn't exist when a cpu was manufactured so that could cause a program to crash or not load.