The Intel Xeon W-3175X Review: 28 Unlocked Cores, $2999
by Ian Cutress on January 30, 2019 9:00 AM ESTTest Bed and Setup
As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
We changed Intel's reference system slightly from what they sent us, for parity. We swapped out the storage for our standard SATA drive (mostly due to issues with the Optane drive supplied), and put in our selection of GPUs for testing.
| Xeon W-3175X System As Tested | |
| Item | |
| CPU | Intel Xeon W-3175X |
| CPU Cooler | Asetek 690LX-PN |
| Motherboard | ASUS Dominus Extreme |
| Memory | 6 x 8GB Samsung DDR4-2666 RDIMM |
| Storage | Crucial MX200 1TB |
| Video Card | Sapphire RX 460 2GB for CPU MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8GB for Gaming |
| Chassis | Anidees AI Crystal XL AR |
| Power Supply | EVGA 1600W T2 Titanium |
Other systems tested followed our usual testing procedure.
| Test Setups | |||||
| Intel HEDT | i9-9980XE i9-7980XE |
ASRock X299 OC Formula |
P1.40 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x4GB DDR4-2666 |
| AMD TR4 | TR2 2970WX TR2 2920X |
ASUS ROG X399 Zenith |
1501 | Enermax Liqtech TR4 |
Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 4x8GB DDR4-2933 |
| TR2 2990WX TR2 2950X |
ASUS ROG X399 Zenith |
0508 | Enermax Liqtech TR4 |
G.Skill FlareX 4x8GB DDR4-2933 |
|
| EPYC SP3 | EPYC 7601 | GIGABYTE MW51-HP0 |
F1 | Enermax Liqtech TR4 |
Micron LRDIMMs 8x128GB DDR4-2666 |
| GPU | Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests) |
||||
| PSU | Corsair AX860i Corsair AX1200i |
||||
| SSD | Crucial MX200 1TB | ||||
| OS | Windows 10 x64 RS3 1709 Spectre and Meltdown Patched |
||||
| VRM Supplimented with SST-FHP141-VF 173 CFM fans | |||||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
136 Comments
View All Comments
johngardner58 - Monday, February 24, 2020 - link
Again it depends on the need. If you need speed, there is no alternative. You can't get it by just running blades because not everything can be broken apart into independent parallel processes. Our company once ran an analysis that took a very long time. When time is money this is the only thing that will fill the bill for certain workloads. Having shared high speed resources (memory and cache) make the difference. That is why 255 Raspberry PIs clustered will not outperform most home desktops unless they are doing highly independent parallel processes. Actually the MIPS per watt on such a processor is probably lower than having individual processors because of the combined inefficiencies of duplicate support circuitry.SanX - Friday, February 1, 2019 - link
Every second home has few running space heaters 1500W at winter timejohngardner58 - Monday, February 24, 2020 - link
Server side: depends on workload, usually yes a bladed or multiprocessor setup is usually better for massively parallel (independent) tasks, but cores can talk to each other much much much faster than blades, as they share caches, memory. So for less parallel work loads (single process multiple threads: e.g. rendering, numerics & analytics) this can provide far more performance and reduced costs. Probably the best example of the need for core count is GPU based processing. Intel also had specialized high core count XEON based accelerator cards with 96 cores at one point. There is a need even if limited.Samus - Thursday, January 31, 2019 - link
The problem is in the vast majority of the applications an $1800 CPU from AMD running on a $300 motherboard (that's an overall platform savings of $2400!) the AMD CPU either matches or beats the Intel Xeon. You have to cherry-pick the benchmarks Intel leads in, and yes, it leads by a healthy margin, but they basically come down to 7-zip, random rendering tasks, and Corona.Disaster strikes when you consider there is ZERO headroom for overclocking the Intel Xeon, where the AMD Threadripper has some headroom to probably narrow the gap on these few and far between defeats.
I love Intel but wow what the hell has been going on over there lately...
Jimbo2K7 - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
Baby's on fire? Better throw her in the water!Love the Eno reference!
repoman27 - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
Nah, I figure Ian for more of a Die Antwoord fan. Intel’s gone zef style to compete with AMD’s Zen style.Ian Cutress - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
^ repoman gets it. I actually listen mostly to melodic/death metal and industrial. Something fast paced to help overclock my brainWasHopingForAnHonestReview - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
My manIGTrading - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
Was testing done with mediation regarding the specific windows BUG that affects AMD's CPUs with more than 16 cores? Or was it done with no attempt to ensure normal processing conditions for ThreadRipper, despite the known bug?eva02langley - Thursday, January 31, 2019 - link
Insomnium, Kalmah, Hypocrisy, Dark Tranquility, Ne Obliviscaris...By the way, Saor and Rotting Christ are releasing their albums in two weeks.
You might want to check out Carpenter Brut - Leether Teeths and Rivers of Nihil - Where Owls Know My Name.