~That page is the first I've heard of license-based downclocking. I know there's no ethical reason not to do it, and it's similar to fusing a higher/lower performance chip out of the same base design, and free-market etc.

But it just makes me sad.~

Edit: Based of this comment [0] and replies, it appears I've misunderstood what 'license' means. My apologies

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24218310

Ah, ok. So the frequency locking was to reduce jitter on the performance tests? If so, this makes sense.

It's also fairly normal to do this. Google benchmark [1] even warns you about this.

[1] https://github.com/google/benchmark

Is it really reasonable to lock your TLS web transfer to a specific CPU thread? Not sure it actually does make sense.

Would be nice to see the non-AVX512 results.

> Is it really reasonable to lock your TLS web transfer to a specific CPU thread? Not sure it actually does make sense.

Only if you want good performance. If you're doing a lot of networking, you want your userland socket servicing pinned to the same CPU that the kernel is using for that socket. Which is easiest to achieve if you cpu pin nic queues and server threads. (If you want really good performance, you might want to skip userland with sendfile + kTLS or nic TLS, or maybe skip the kernel with userland networking)

For a benchmark, cpu pinning and tight control of the system is a clear prerequisite; you want to maximize repeatability, and user threads bouncing around cpu threads leads to less repeatable results.

If you really need good performance, aren't you going to be running far more sockets than you have network adapters?