I'm going out on a limb and predict that this can't touch the Threadripper 2990wx in terms of performance/price ratio. The question is, will it beat the 2990wx in terms of raw speed, and if yes, how much more will it cost? This 28-core is more niche than even the super-niche 32-core AMD proc.
/s: But where is the 5Ghz 28-core? Will it be a surprise announcement a-la Steve Jobs' "Oh and one more thing..."? /end of sarcasm
it can run only 4.3ghz single core max turbo... the intel turbo core scaling madness....
44+245 PCi-e lanes.... oh reaaaaaalllllllyyyyyyy as long as you have enough *16 and think you have the full performance lanes people will think they have it all :)
It might be a really great chip for code compiling. It has enough cores to handle a lot of files at once for the compile phase itself, plus a high turbo for linking, etc., that bottlenecks down to one or a few cores.
I'll wait to see the benchmarks, but this what I'd probably suggest if I were getting a new workstation - and it'll probably end up being cheaper than the dual-processor system I'm using now on top of it.
Maybe performance/price ratio (which is not that important for rich people). But performance wise, W3175X should completely destroy 2990wx in every dimension.
If you care about performance ratio, then there is no reason to buy 2990WX over 2950X. It has double the price but perform only 1.5x faster than 2950X and thats in multi-threaded benchmarks that scale well with cores like cinebench
If someone buys this for gaming, then yes I'd agree - it's a completely unnecessary toy. It will be fun to look at all the cores/threads in Task Manager, and get high multi-core benchmark scores, and that's about it.
This is primarily aimed at people who are going to use it for work however. The reason why I'm on here writing messages on AnandTech during work hours, and reading articles about potentially faster CPUs, is because I'm currently waiting on my workstation to finish what it's doing. I made a change to a fairly frequently included header file in a large C++ project, and as a result a large portion of the code has to be recompiled, which will take about 15 minutes using nearly 100% CPU for the majority of that time.
Currently I'm using a dual-8 core (16 cores total) @ 3.5GHz Xeon workstation that is about 2 years old. It's fairly powerful and yet, depending on the task(s), I often still spend a large portion of my day waiting. Considering how much time I spend waiting for my computer to finish doing things, even an expensive CPU could be "cheap" in terms of work-hours saved if it significantly reduced that amount of time - it might even only take a few months for something like this to pay for itself in time-savings.
It will not "completely destroy" the 2990WX. Both overclocked to their limit with extreme cooling systems and you're probably looking at a 15-20% advantage in multi-core performance for 2-3x the price knowing Intel. The only "destroying" that will be done here is if AVX2 or AVX512 is used. Otherwise the 2990WX will be less than half the price, and offer more CPU-based platform I/O and similar multi-core performance, and likely, better power efficiency.
Given that the refreshed 18 core costs $2,000, and it uses the same die as a nearly $9K server chip, my guess is that this - as a single-socket only workstation chip - will be priced between $3,000 and $4,200 - my personal prediction is right down the middle at $3,599.
It would be even more expensive - if it ever came out at all - if not for the competition from AMD. But AMD fumbled a little by gimping memory access on the 2990WX. They had a chance to knock it out of the park with that one, as a relatively high clockspeed 32-core workstation CPU. Instead, it ended up only being useful for a subset of workloads. This Intel processor won't have any such limitations, and so it will likely be the go-to workstation chip for most uses that can benefit greatly from high core counts.
It will be commonly used to replace prior-gen dual-socket workstations running a pair of ~$2K CPUs, so the total system cost will probably remain about the same.
A lot of driver updates under the bridge since the 2990WX launch though which removes a lot of those early driver problems with memory access. A lot of reviewers were also not aware that vast performance improvements could be had if you moved all processes of the 0/1 core except OS processes. Presumably because it wasn't known by even AMD at the time. Furthermore, for those testing gaming on the 2990WX (for some reason) and tested using the Wraithripper that blocks the top PCI-e slot that is directly connected to the CPU die that game threads defaults to start from, they'd naturally see far higher results if they used core affinities to move these threads to the CPU die that is actually directly connected to the PCI-e slot that has the graphics slot. Most of these issues should be corrected now though.
This is not to excuse AMD though. Clearly these are workarounds that could have been largely avoided with due diligence testing. But AMD can always say: "you want the highest possible memory performance, well, suck it up and buy an EPYC instead". And that is really the end of it. The Threadripper 2 line offers extremely high performance at an extremely low price point. It is not however a jack of all trades (until you get to the lower tier SKUs).
And Epyc would be a reasonable alternative if it clocked high enough. The Epyc 7601 has a base clock of 2.2 GHz, with a 3.2 GHz boost. That's about 1/3 slower than this Intel chip is going to clock at. For server applications, that makes sense. For workstation applications, we'd like to have our cake and eat it too - high clockrate for regular single-threaded tasks, and a lot of cores when we can make use of them.
Hopefully Epyc 2, if it comes in a 64-core flagship variant, will also include a high-clocked 32-core variant that will be ideal for workstation use.
The factor that allows for a bit lower price is that it's limited to a single-socket installation. That's the big differentiating factor between this chip and the server chip it's based on. This is going to be in the Xeon W line - not Xeon Gold/Platinum. The Xeon W-2195 (18 core) has a list price of $2,553; which is about $500 more than the equivalent i9.
So I suppose they could still go a bit higher - $4,500 maybe - but I can't see them going much beyond that, if they really want this to be considered a competitor for AMD's chips.
You have got the PCIe lane split wrong, it is 48 CPU + 20 PCH, not 44 CPU + 24 PCH like on the Core X models, check the block diagram from the liveblog. Also, do we know if the UPI lanes which have apparently been repurposed as misc IO (see mesh diagram from the liveblog) will actually be used by motherboard vendors for anything?
the case image is definitely distorted/badly edited. It looks like someone tried to combined a straight on shot with one at an angle to show the top/front of the case and did a facepalmishly awful job. I suspect the black things are hinges to attach the side panel as a door.
Consider revising that one: "The newly unveiled ASUS ROG Dominus Extreme is specifically designed for use with the new Xeon W-3175X processor which is the newly announced 28-core processor, which given official specification are currently unavailable we know is going to require a large amount of power draw."
"massive 38.5 MB cache". Eh, it seems pretty small for a 28 core chip. Remembering back to my old Q9550 which had 12MB of L2 cache between 4 cores, that would equate to 84MB if things had stayed the same.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
32 Comments
Back to Article
LMonty - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
I'm going out on a limb and predict that this can't touch the Threadripper 2990wx in terms of performance/price ratio. The question is, will it beat the 2990wx in terms of raw speed, and if yes, how much more will it cost? This 28-core is more niche than even the super-niche 32-core AMD proc./s: But where is the 5Ghz 28-core? Will it be a surprise announcement a-la Steve Jobs' "Oh and one more thing..."? /end of sarcasm
duploxxx - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
it can run only 4.3ghz single core max turbo... the intel turbo core scaling madness....44+245 PCi-e lanes.... oh reaaaaaalllllllyyyyyyy as long as you have enough *16 and think you have the full performance lanes people will think they have it all :)
twtech - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
It might be a really great chip for code compiling. It has enough cores to handle a lot of files at once for the compile phase itself, plus a high turbo for linking, etc., that bottlenecks down to one or a few cores.I'll wait to see the benchmarks, but this what I'd probably suggest if I were getting a new workstation - and it'll probably end up being cheaper than the dual-processor system I'm using now on top of it.
maroon1 - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Maybe performance/price ratio (which is not that important for rich people). But performance wise, W3175X should completely destroy 2990wx in every dimension.If you care about performance ratio, then there is no reason to buy 2990WX over 2950X. It has double the price but perform only 1.5x faster than 2950X and thats in multi-threaded benchmarks that scale well with cores like cinebench
bubblyboo - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
"W3175X should completely destroy 2990wx in every dimension"Maybe if you had at least 500W of CPU cooling.
twtech - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
If someone buys this for gaming, then yes I'd agree - it's a completely unnecessary toy. It will be fun to look at all the cores/threads in Task Manager, and get high multi-core benchmark scores, and that's about it.This is primarily aimed at people who are going to use it for work however. The reason why I'm on here writing messages on AnandTech during work hours, and reading articles about potentially faster CPUs, is because I'm currently waiting on my workstation to finish what it's doing. I made a change to a fairly frequently included header file in a large C++ project, and as a result a large portion of the code has to be recompiled, which will take about 15 minutes using nearly 100% CPU for the majority of that time.
Currently I'm using a dual-8 core (16 cores total) @ 3.5GHz Xeon workstation that is about 2 years old. It's fairly powerful and yet, depending on the task(s), I often still spend a large portion of my day waiting. Considering how much time I spend waiting for my computer to finish doing things, even an expensive CPU could be "cheap" in terms of work-hours saved if it significantly reduced that amount of time - it might even only take a few months for something like this to pay for itself in time-savings.
AshlayW - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
It will not "completely destroy" the 2990WX. Both overclocked to their limit with extreme cooling systems and you're probably looking at a 15-20% advantage in multi-core performance for 2-3x the price knowing Intel. The only "destroying" that will be done here is if AVX2 or AVX512 is used. Otherwise the 2990WX will be less than half the price, and offer more CPU-based platform I/O and similar multi-core performance, and likely, better power efficiency.Darcey R. Epperly - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Does it need Helium cooling using AVX-512 with 4.3 GHz on all cores?Inteli - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Does it include a chiller, too?mapesdhs - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
#include <burn.h>:D
simpleplan - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
No thunderbolt no deal. How could they miss that, when it was aimed at content creators.M O B - Thursday, October 11, 2018 - link
I see a TB header in the bottom left-hand corner on that board. Do you have some reason to think that header is non-functional?oRAirwolf - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
I'm sure this will be competitively priced to compete with the 2990WX /stwtech - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Given that the refreshed 18 core costs $2,000, and it uses the same die as a nearly $9K server chip, my guess is that this - as a single-socket only workstation chip - will be priced between $3,000 and $4,200 - my personal prediction is right down the middle at $3,599.It would be even more expensive - if it ever came out at all - if not for the competition from AMD. But AMD fumbled a little by gimping memory access on the 2990WX. They had a chance to knock it out of the park with that one, as a relatively high clockspeed 32-core workstation CPU. Instead, it ended up only being useful for a subset of workloads. This Intel processor won't have any such limitations, and so it will likely be the go-to workstation chip for most uses that can benefit greatly from high core counts.
It will be commonly used to replace prior-gen dual-socket workstations running a pair of ~$2K CPUs, so the total system cost will probably remain about the same.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
A lot of driver updates under the bridge since the 2990WX launch though which removes a lot of those early driver problems with memory access. A lot of reviewers were also not aware that vast performance improvements could be had if you moved all processes of the 0/1 core except OS processes. Presumably because it wasn't known by even AMD at the time. Furthermore, for those testing gaming on the 2990WX (for some reason) and tested using the Wraithripper that blocks the top PCI-e slot that is directly connected to the CPU die that game threads defaults to start from, they'd naturally see far higher results if they used core affinities to move these threads to the CPU die that is actually directly connected to the PCI-e slot that has the graphics slot. Most of these issues should be corrected now though.This is not to excuse AMD though. Clearly these are workarounds that could have been largely avoided with due diligence testing. But AMD can always say: "you want the highest possible memory performance, well, suck it up and buy an EPYC instead". And that is really the end of it. The Threadripper 2 line offers extremely high performance at an extremely low price point. It is not however a jack of all trades (until you get to the lower tier SKUs).
twtech - Monday, October 15, 2018 - link
And Epyc would be a reasonable alternative if it clocked high enough. The Epyc 7601 has a base clock of 2.2 GHz, with a 3.2 GHz boost. That's about 1/3 slower than this Intel chip is going to clock at. For server applications, that makes sense. For workstation applications, we'd like to have our cake and eat it too - high clockrate for regular single-threaded tasks, and a lot of cores when we can make use of them.Hopefully Epyc 2, if it comes in a 64-core flagship variant, will also include a high-clocked 32-core variant that will be ideal for workstation use.
Dr. Swag - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
I feel like it might cost even more because of the xeon name. Otherwise I probably woulda said 4k max but xeon raises the price a lot...twtech - Monday, October 15, 2018 - link
The factor that allows for a bit lower price is that it's limited to a single-socket installation. That's the big differentiating factor between this chip and the server chip it's based on. This is going to be in the Xeon W line - not Xeon Gold/Platinum. The Xeon W-2195 (18 core) has a list price of $2,553; which is about $500 more than the equivalent i9.So I suppose they could still go a bit higher - $4,500 maybe - but I can't see them going much beyond that, if they really want this to be considered a competitor for AMD's chips.
Dark_Complex - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
You have got the PCIe lane split wrong, it is 48 CPU + 20 PCH, not 44 CPU + 24 PCH like on the Core X models, check the block diagram from the liveblog. Also, do we know if the UPI lanes which have apparently been repurposed as misc IO (see mesh diagram from the liveblog) will actually be used by motherboard vendors for anything?Ian Cutress - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
The image Intel showed said 48 + 24, and they said verbally 44+24.wolrah - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
"At least, Intel itself demonstrated the chip with a cooler featuring two fans and a 240-mm radiator."The picture directly above this line shows a system with a three-fan 360mm radiator.
Gratin - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
You need to dissipate minimum 255W at 3.1 GHZ.Probably much more when fully loaded.
I see no other fan in the case.
It would be interesting in seeing the overall thermal performance.
Gratin - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Is it me or the case is not square?What are these black pieces holding the back?
DanNeely - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
the case image is definitely distorted/badly edited. It looks like someone tried to combined a straight on shot with one at an angle to show the top/front of the case and did a facepalmishly awful job. I suspect the black things are hinges to attach the side panel as a door.MrSpadge - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
Consider revising that one:"The newly unveiled ASUS ROG Dominus Extreme is specifically designed for use with the new Xeon W-3175X processor which is the newly announced 28-core processor, which given official specification are currently unavailable we know is going to require a large amount of power draw."
Eliadbu - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link
at least EKWB has waterblock for it ( I won't even considered using AIO and Overclocking it at the same time)Neoqueto - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
Thank god, the TDP can still fit in a single byte, phew.SaturnusDK - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
At base clocks, sure :DNikosD - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link
@Anton ShilovAll the other sites are giving the TDP as 255W.
I think you have to correct your figure of 265W.
piroroadkill - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link
"massive 38.5 MB cache".Eh, it seems pretty small for a 28 core chip. Remembering back to my old Q9550 which had 12MB of L2 cache between 4 cores, that would equate to 84MB if things had stayed the same.
alpha754293 - Saturday, October 13, 2018 - link
The radiator has three fans.r13j13r13 - Monday, October 15, 2018 - link
well if it comes with nitrogen refrigeration included in the price I would think