Not entirely. With a sword against full armour, you'd probably do no damage unless you managed to enter the blade in a joint or through a slit, and then it could be deadly.
So for a realistic damage, you would have tp differentiate between weapons vs armour also. A sword blade against a full helmet would do way less damage than a warhammer.
Which is why ancient texts on duelling often show a duellist grabbing a sword by the blade and hitting an armored oppenent with the pommel or crossguard.
This image does NOT show half swording, but the murder grip.
And this definitely aint no duel because in a duel both opponents would wear the same amount of armor.
Also the socalled murder grip cant be done on a sharp sword with bare hands. You would literally cut your hands into pieces on the impact, as multiple HEMA tests have shown (for example by Skallagrim on Youtube). This sword is either adapted (blunt in places), unsharpened in general (not unrealistic against plate armor) or the image is inaccurate.
The swords used here are interesting though, because they are clearly adapted for the murder grip. Both the crossguard and the pommel have spikes.
The most common technique with swords against plate armor is half swording. Most plate armor has gaps in which you can try to attack by holding the sword with one hand by the grip and with the other hand near the point. Basically you turn your sword into a dagger, with much more precision where it hits, but also with much more impact power behind it.
All in all swords havent been the best option against opponents in plate armor. Thats why topheavy weapons have been popular at the time. Even simple clubs, but also maces, warhammers, and of course the poleaxe.
