Depends on your priorities. That "performance on the table" might also be called "engineering safety factor for stability".

▲

makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

TBF using more conservative energy profiles will bring stability and safety. To that effect in Windows the default profile effectively debuffs the CPU and most people will be fine that way.

	▲	therein 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		So now you're saying just accept the fact that they come pushed past their limits, and the limits are misrepresented. Factory configuration runs them faster than they could in a stable fashion. That sounds terrible.

▲

stavros 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given that there used to be plenty of room to overclock the cores while still keeping them stable, I think it was more "performance on the table".

	▲	formerly_proven 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You could also get the idea that vendors sometimes make strange decisions which increase neither performance nor reliability. For example, various brands of motherboards are / were known to basically blow up AMD CPUs when using AMP/XMP, with the root cause being that they jacked an uncore rail way up. Many people claimed they did this to improve stability, but overclockers now that that rail has a sweet spot for stability and they went way beyond it (so much so that the actual silicon failed and burned a hole in itself with some low-ish probability).

▲

devnullbrain 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep. Redundancy and headroom are antonyms of efficiency.