Yeah no. I would take a 2990WX over this any time of the day. Cheaper and more powerful than this and runs great on most Linux distros.

xkm1948Yeah no. I would take a 2990WX over this any time of the day. Cheaper and more powerful than this and runs great on most Linux distros.

Ayup, 2990WX at Newegg right now for $1,729 vs this. o_O

At the price it retails for it shouldn't be called a xeon, chances are it lacks the features that differentiates that series from the intel core series, although it's a unlocked xeon platinum 8180 so it sorta makes sense.

Dual PSU goodness!

Any news on consumer motherboard actually & pricing?

yakkAny news on consumer motherboard actually & pricing?

It's a different form factor, so remember to take into account the cost of the specialized case.

Xx Tek Tip xXIt's a different form factor, so remember to take into account the cost of the specialized case.

oops, "availability".

Saw a couple of those cases from CES, Full Tower+ sizes here we go.

yakkAny news on consumer motherboard actually & pricing?

Gamers Nexus said that for now you only have ASUS inside system integrators. Retail may come at a later date. There's word that the price may be upwards of $1000.
Gigabyte is MIA at the moment. Apparently they still don't know if they'll release it or not.

My concern with this product is availability and relevance so late in the product lifecycle. If it's true that this product will not be widely available, then it really doesn't matter how good it is. The motherboard selection is also a concern.

I still wonder why Intel bothered so late, it's only a few months until they launch Cooper Lake-SP, which will be on the same platform as Ice Lake-SP(2020).

xkm1948Yeah no. I would take a 2990WX over this any time of the day. Cheaper and more powerful than this and runs great on most Linux distros.

W-3175X beats 2990WX in most tests with a good margin. This doesn't mean it's worth the money though, that really comes down to the workload.

Unlike typical mainstream PC usage, workstation performance is very workload specific. Heavy loads on this many cores also helps emphasize the architectural differences between the products. You will find a number of benchmarks where i9-9980XE (18-core) beats 2990WX (32-core), so it's not as simple as product A is better than B.

efikkanMy concern with this product is availability and relevance so late in the product lifecycle. If it's true that this product will not be widely available, then it really doesn't matter how good it is. The motherboard selection is also a concern.

I still wonder why Intel bothered so late, it's only a few months until they launch Cooper Lake-SP, which will be on the same platform as Ice Lake-SP(2020).


W-3175X beats 2990WX in most tests with a good margin. This doesn't mean it's worth the money though, that really comes down to the workload.

Unlike typical mainstream PC usage, workstation performance is very workload specific. Heavy loads on this many cores also helps emphasize the architectural differences between the products. You will find a number of benchmarks where i9-9980XE (18-core) beats 2990WX (32-core), so it's not as simple as product A is better than B.

Pretty much. Intel simply has core-to-core (Intel to AMD core) better performance. Sometimes even when there is less cores, cause a lot of stuff is optimized for Intel, not AMD (and AMD cores are simply "not there").

Also TR4 isnt really server dedicated platform, its just platform that also can be server (which also makes it ridiculously useful for multi-purpose PC :D). Something that cant be said about 2066.

MescalambaSometimes even when there is less cores, cause a lot of stuff is optimized for Intel, not AMD (and AMD cores are simply "not there").

There aren't really any good ways to optimize for one or the other, they use the same ISA and nearly all of the same ISA extensions. The "optimized for Intel" claim is a myth.

The different architectures do have different strengths and weaknesses though. AMD does have generally more cores per price, and for certain workloads that can scale better. In other cases, especially workloads which are challenging for the front-end of the CPU core, Intel scales generally much better.

It is worth mentioning though, that as new CPUs progress with higher core counts, IPC will actually become even more important. Scaling with multithreading is very workload specific. If the workload can be divided into x independent chunks and synchronization is not important, then scaling with more cores can be nearly linear. But with mixed loads, more typical for a utility like a CAD or photo editor, we usually see diminishing returns due to increasing thread overhead. Higher IPC will help offset some of this overhead.

ShurikNGamers Nexus said that for now you only have ASUS inside system integrators. Retail may come at a later date. There's word that the price may be upwards of $1000.
Gigabyte is MIA at the moment. Apparently they still don't know if they'll release it or not.

Putting aside the over engineering required for something like this, with the amount of components needed and assembly complexity on those boards $1,000 would actually be not a bad price. Then factor in R&D costs (probably mostly or completely subsidized by intel) and low sales volume.

Need water cooling to run at stock!!! I thought Intels process technology were superior and superior technology consume less energy and produce less heat. But here i am seeing opposite.

ironwolfAyup, 2990WX at Newegg right now for $1,729 vs this. o_O

true, but it's an AMD :S

Product is DOA with zen2 almost here. Only fools will buy this.

Core to core, zen is arguably superior to skylake (now waiting for intel defence force). It's physically smaller on a less dense process, the same or more efficient on a much less efficient process and has almost the same IPC, with superior SMT due to a wider core design and FPU. Intel's branch predictor and front end is a bit better and their architecture has quicker Inter-core communication, lower latency and same for imc.

But zen scales far better, is cheaper and more modular, and zen2 addresses the front end bottleneck.

Honestly this 28c room heater is DOA sorry

ArbitraryAffection(now waiting for intel defence force).

Intel defense force? Strange, it's quite the opposite. Any Intel or Nvidia related news gets flooded with AMD fans telling "lol expensive, lol has 2 less cores, lol it's 10 dollars more". While in return, most Intel/Nvidia folks don't really bother to join AMD related topics. It's like AMD fans have an inferiority complex.

efikkanMy concern with this product is availability and relevance so late in the product lifecycle. If it's true that this product will not be widely available, then it really doesn't matter how good it is. The motherboard selection is also a concern.

I still wonder why Intel bothered so late, it's only a few months until they launch Cooper Lake-SP, which will be on the same platform as Ice Lake-SP(2020).


W-3175X beats 2990WX in most tests with a good margin. This doesn't mean it's worth the money though, that really comes down to the workload.

Unlike typical mainstream PC usage, workstation performance is very workload specific. Heavy loads on this many cores also helps emphasize the architectural differences between the products. You will find a number of benchmarks where i9-9980XE (18-core) beats 2990WX (32-core), so it's not as simple as product A is better than B.

I am not so sure about that. In single threaded applications under Windows enviornment it does beats 2990WX. Well at least in my bioinformatics applications in Linux, which are heavily multi-threaded BTW, would have no problem beats this. Adding some health 4GHz all core OC to 2990WX under a custom loop and it chews anything I throw at it. (Already did a build with a 2990WX)
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/building-a-2990wx-system.246902/

At this point this CPU is only for OEMs. You won't be able to buy it standalone to there's no reason to worry about motherboards. :-)

As for the price: this CPU is made for really expensive workstations. We're talking 10+ thousand USD. So the premium for this over TR isn't that huge in the total cost.
Moreover, it should be cheaper for OEMs to make workstations with Intel CPUs than with AMD alternatives, so some of the extra cost will be mitigated anyway.

And even if final workstations end up more expensive, they should still be acceptable for clients. In some scenarios this CPU beats 2990WX by a really wide margin.

I've read a review on this new CPU from Anandtech and it was a fairly interesting read.. AMD wins in some areas, Intel in others. One thing I read was the price $3000... Then I heard the CPU requirements and power usage for stock, then overclocked and whilst I care little about power usage, stock is rated at 255w, Asus then did a turbo version which was 510w.. Now at stock speeds it never reached that high but overclocked it did require a little help with the water to keep it cool.. And also the max temp of the CPU was reported to be 120c (auto shut down)

Take a look here....

Some quotes from Anandtech page I found interesting -

At 4.3 GHz, we were hitting over 500W peak load (confirmed by wall meter), which is the limit of the cooling setup provided. Compared to the 4.0 GHz result, we calculated that the CPU actually used 17% more power overall to get a 7% increase in performance.

Here the power is overall a bit lower, but we can see that the score isn’t rising much at 4.0 GHz, again due to our CPU temperature sensor showing 110ºC very easily. In this instance, the power consumption between 3.9 GHz and 3.6 GHz increased by 14%, while the score rose 10%.

Intel sent an EKWB Phoenix cooler which is rated for much higher power consumption, but arrived too late for our testing. We’re planning on doing an overclocking review, so this should help. But what our results show is that when Intel showed that 5.0 GHz demonstration using a water chiller they really did need it. Users might look into investing in one themselves if they want this chip.

And then the topping on the cake...

But What About That 5.0 GHz? How Much Power?
We took some of our benchmark values for power and frequency, extrapolated them with a power curve, and we estimate that at 5.0 GHz, this chip is likely to be drawing in excess of 900W, perhaps as high as 1200W. Yes, Intel really did need that 1700W water chiller.

But in all seriousness, if you have a 28 core CPU, don't you expect to have a high power draw?? Maybe it's just me but common sense to me is - more cores, more speed, more heat....

As Anandtech points out, it's more of a case of a non held back performance CPU... Question is, who would buy one? :)

ArbitraryAffectionintel offence force

Corrected for you. Also nvidia offence force on every AMD GPU topic.

efikkanThere aren't really any good ways to optimize for one or the other, they use the same ISA and nearly all of the same ISA extensions. The "optimized for Intel" claim is a myth.

The different architectures do have different strengths and weaknesses though. AMD does have generally more cores per price, and for certain workloads that can scale better. In other cases, especially workloads which are challenging for the front-end of the CPU core, Intel scales generally much better.

It is worth mentioning though, that as new CPUs progress with higher core counts, IPC will actually become even more important. Scaling with multithreading is very workload specific. If the workload can be divided into x independent chunks and synchronization is not important, then scaling with more cores can be nearly linear. But with mixed loads, more typical for a utility like a CAD or photo editor, we usually see diminishing returns due to increasing thread overhead. Higher IPC will help offset some of this overhead.

Since I owned both platforms over the years I kinda dont care whose CPU I have as long as it does what I want.

Yea there is optimized for Intel or to be specific "crippled for AMD". There is so many cases where AMD and Intel perform about same but in some other cases AMD is suddenly horrible and Intel isnt. And its not core count or core speed either. Not talking about AMD losing some 20%, where its expected, since one AMD core at 4GHz isnt equiv of one Intel core at 4GHz, but cases where AMD suddenly has 50% less performance for no reason.

MescalambaSince I owned both platforms over the years I kinda dont care whose CPU I have as long as it does what I want.

Yea there is optimized for Intel or to be specific "crippled for AMD". There is so many cases where AMD and Intel perform about same but in some other cases AMD is suddenly horrible and Intel isnt. And its not core count or core speed either. Not talking about AMD losing some 20%, where its expected, since one AMD core at 4GHz isnt equiv of one Intel core at 4GHz, but cases where AMD suddenly has 50% less performance for no reason.

CPU performance depends on more than just core count and frequency. Why don't you learn a bit before you start accusing of "crippling AMD"?

NxodusIntel defense force? Strange, it's quite the opposite. Any Intel or Nvidia related news gets flooded with AMD fans telling "lol expensive, lol has 2 less cores, lol it's 10 dollars more". While in return, most Intel/Nvidia folks don't really bother to join AMD related topics. It's like AMD fans have an inferiority complex.

The fact you are identifying 'AMD and Intel 'folks' is already so wrong on so many levels to begin with.

How about letting that go, and taking a fresh approach to this, considering we are all consumers first and foremost. Has it occurred to you that people switch 'sides' all the time, too? Look around a bit and you will see. What's more interesting here is the reasoning behind those switches. As is the reasoning behind favoring one brand or the other. Who knows, maybe at some point we'll learn something.

Vayra86The fact you are identifying 'AMD and Intel 'folks' is already so wrong on so many levels to begin with.

How about letting that go, and taking a fresh approach to this, considering we are all consumers first and foremost. Has it occurred to you that people switch 'sides' all the time, too? Look around a bit and you will see. What's more interesting here is the reasoning behind those switches. As is the reasoning behind favoring one brand or the other. Who knows, maybe at some point we'll learn something.

I agree. I switch hardware (sides ?) all the time.

I've an Intel 3570K with R9 390 for only gaming and a newer workstation 2950X with Vega64. I can game on the newer 2950X system, but choose not to waste resources installing games to it and limit it to software dev, 3D modeling, video encoding. To do my required non gaming workloads on a comparable Intel system, I'd have to spend at least double on an equivalent Intel system.

Is Intel evil because of this and I'm an AMD fanboi ? No! - Intel just needs to compete better to win my dollars to address my multi-core workloads I do !

Perhaps for other people, Intel HEDT solutions make more sense for the niche workloads they need to run - however I suspect that performance/dollar (non-gaming) for Threadripper represent better value.

Other family members have various Intel quadcore with nVidia graphics cards that I maintain for them.

yakkDual PSU goodness!

Any news on consumer motherboard actually & pricing?

Asus Dominus REX , 2000$.
And that's the only one available.

RobcostyleAsus Dominus REX , 2000$.
And that's the only one available.

Yeeeeah, that actually makes more sense... that is one complex motherboard...

Especially given the fact per the Anandtech article I just finished reading Asus only seemed to have gotten an order for 500 of these.

You know... thinking about it, it still seems oddly cheap, hard to recoup any costs spread over just 500 units!?