I got into an argument with a friend that thinks generally is not a good idea to manually lock a CPU to a high frequency, or even overclocking by locking the frequency, in a stable scenario. His main argument is: why would I want it to run like that, because most of the time my computer sits idle, as if a car engine is revved without moving. But from my experience, the analogy is not quite so because a CPU locked at a high frequency and locked voltage, will barely consume anymore power in idle states than a CPU that behaves in default configuration. As an example, from my experience, at idle, 4.1 GHz @ 1.35V and 1.6 GHz @ 0.6V uses roughly the same amount power.
But what about the clock cycles? Are there any advantages of having the CPU locked and ready for when the load demands high performance? Are there any disadvantages?
Wikipedia in CPU clocks states:
After each clock pulse, the signal lines inside the CPU need time to settle to their new state. That is, every signal line must finish transitioning from 0 to 1, or from 1 to 0. If the next clock pulse comes before that, the results will be incorrect. In the process of transitioning, some energy is wasted as heat (mostly inside the driving transistors).
Can this count as an advantage towards locking the frequency?
I would like to know more about this from an engineering / electrical POV.