28c Intel W-3175X Reviews; $1700 motherboard?

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Large radiator systems don't out put all that much wattage. What they do is keep a large heat sink (the fluid) at a temperature the meets your needs. 

You still need 3kw+ for a decent sized room or to even think about more than one room. Energy is energy, where it comes from doesn't matter. If you've used a 1.5kw-2kw aircon unit you'll know just how actually useless they are.

 

Central house radiator systems have a lot of energy output which is why they are so effective.

 

Not that it would actually take much to create an effective system, all you need is 2 or 3 quad GPU systems and a hot water heat exchanger. These already exist, solar hot water tube systems.

 

 

 

This way you can keep a clean loop for the PC side and be easily serviceable, yea I have actually thought about doing this lol. 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You still need 3kw+ for a decent sized room or to even think about more than one room. Energy is energy, where it comes from doesn't matter. If you've used a 1.5kw-2kw aircon unit you'll know just how actually useless they are.

 

Central house radiator systems have a lot of energy output which is why they are so effective.

 

Not that it would actually take much to create an effective system, all you need is 2 or 3 quad GPU systems and a hot water heat exchanger. These already exist, solar hot water tube systems.

 

 

 

This way you can keep a clean loop for the PC side and be easily serviceable, yea I have actually thought about doing this lol. 

 

I think anyone that lived through the early 2010s in tech has given at least a thought to re-purposing our expensive space heaters.

[strajk-]

1 hour ago, GoldenLag said:

also they are hotter. 

That is simply not true.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition,5805-11.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powercolor-red-devil-rx-vega-64-8gb,5517-6.html

[leadeater]

54 minutes ago, strajk- said:

That is simply not true.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition,5805-11.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powercolor-red-devil-rx-vega-64-8gb,5517-6.html

How hot the GPU gets isn't really the factor that is important, that really only indicates how good the cooler is at dissipating the heat generated by the GPU. Vega 64 will easily put out more heat than a 2080 Ti will because Nvidia imposes a very hard board power limit and AMD does not. Without modding the 2080 Ti I think the cap is 350W, you can get a Vega 64 to pull 500W-600W if you want to.

[GoldenLag]

54 minutes ago, strajk- said:

That is simply not true.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition,5805-11.html

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/powercolor-red-devil-rx-vega-64-8gb,5517-6.html

Hotter as in more heat generated.

 

You can also powermod the Vega to draw as much as you could possibly want

[GoldenLag]

Just now, leadeater said:

you can get a Vega 64 to pull 500W-600W if you want to.

I think you can do that with the vega 56. I believe you can do a tiny bit extra on the vega 64. 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I think you can do that with the vega 56. I believe you can do a tiny bit extra on the vega 64. 

Both you can turn in to fission reactors. Not sure why all those scientists haven't contacted AMD to find out the secret to fission reaction, seems AMD knows how to do it reliably and cheaply 

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Both you can turn in to fission reactors. Not sure why all those scientists haven't contact AMD to find out the secret to fission reaction, seems AMD knows how to do it reliably and cheaply 

They are Team Red. 

 

They probably got in Contact with Kim Jong un. 

 

Also its fusion. Not some 50s tech. And i wouldnt call it cheap, the power bill is quite high qnd it comes with this addon called HBM that makes it expencive.

 

AMD doesnt make money from it, therefore it must be communist technoligy

[Tristerin]

9 hours ago, fasauceome said:

Hardly, it's abundantly clear throughout Steve's review that the stock 2990wx performance is the only thing included, and when power draw is highlighted, he doesn't even mention the OC power draw until the very end as an afterthought.

 

 

In fact, at the end of the review he says for the most part the Xeon is terrible value, highlighting the excellent price to performance advantage threadripper has. GamersNexus is one of the most accurate and thorough reviewers out there.

 

You are pulling up a screenshot from a video.  I was specifically talking about the graphs posted, which are graphs posted stand-a-lone on the website?  Being that is the case, without further investigation - this is intentional.  Unless you delve deeper.  The info should be in the graphs, not discussed by the person in the video only.

 

Its misleading by default.

 

It wouldn't be misleading if the second graph...had the same tests ran since its pareto off of the first graph...simple business here.  It is misleading, whether people are addicted to liking these techtubers or not.  Theres only one reason to leave that information as skewed as it is in those charts...and its not to be forthcoming with all information. 

 

So you could say it was an error...but this is business, very unlikely.  Its just promoting Intel over AMD.   I mean the chip barely edges ahead...with such bad power draw lol.  They still want their samples from Intel so they are playing the "game".

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Also its fusion. Not some 50s tech. And i wouldnt call it cheap, the power bill is quite high qnd it comes with this addon called HBM that makes it expencive.

Nah man AMD doesn't have the tech for fusion, they ain't that good. Just fission that won't go critical and micro sized reactors.

Spoiler

Yea I did actually mean fusion, maybe I can fake it well enough that you believe that it wasn't a mistake :)

 

[leadeater]

On 1/31/2019 at 12:58 PM, Tristerin said:

Why wasn't the OC'd Threadripper tested in the first graph...but its power consumption smack in the middle as an Overclock for power draw - looks like intentional placement to try to make it look like the Threadripper used a ton of power as well, to reach the score in the first picture.

Because as it was explained the 2990WX was on loan and had to be given back, there wasn't enough time with the part to do all the tests both stock and OC. This is an Intel W-3175X review not a 2990WX review.

 

I also have no idea what about it is misleading, you have the stock power draw for blender and the stock blender performance results, what does the OC power draw matter? It's not tied to any performance figures at all but at least you know what to expect power wise if you did OC.

 

As to the other comments you made in this thread further on every graph in the video is posted in the article on the website, did you actually go seek that out. The OP is under no obligation to post every single graph from a review, especially if there is a lot of them. These are news posts, summaries, not a place to post reviews in full ripping off content from the original publishers.

[Kukielka]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I think anyone that lived through the early 2010s in tech has given at least a thought to re-purposing our expensive space heaters.

Ahh yes, The GTX 480, followed by 3x 290s, followed by 2x 1080ti.

Quite the ride.

[Tristerin]

Just now, leadeater said:

Because as it was explained the 2990WX was on loan and had to be given back, there wasn't enough time with the part to do all the tests both stock and OC. This is an Intel W-3175X review not a 2990WX review.

 

I also have no idea what about it is misleading, you have the stock power draw for blender and the stock blender performance results, what does the OC power draw matter? It's not tied to any performance figures at all but at least you know what to expect power wise if you did OC.

 

As to the other comments you made in this thread further on every graph in the video is posted in the article on the website, did you actually go seek that out. The OP is under no obligation to post every single graph from a review, especially if there is a lot of them. These are news posts, summaries, not a place to post reviews in full ripping off content from the original publishers.

 

We don't have to agree - but I pass up pareto charts to board members for a living, and this is intentionally skewed (whether described in the video or not there is not an Asterisk denoting that the charts are not inclusive of the entire testing environment.)

Power to Performance is discussed ALL the time.  I assume its just not important this one time, I guess.

 

Im not going after the OP, Im stating that the charts are misleading.  To think otherwise is....choice.  That's fine, we don't have to agree. 

 

Had there been an indication of this on the graphs presented themselves (pulled from the website) than I wouldn't have said, or been able to say, a word.

 

But in their current form, in its presentation as a slide its misleading.  They COULD have included that information, because they clearly have it (regardless of what flowery words are used in the video to make up for the false pareto on the charts).

[Sauron]

On 1/30/2019 at 4:17 PM, Taf the Ghost said:

I didn't clip it, but there's one program (Premiere) that can really leverage the platform well. But that's more Adobe than necessarily the AMD CPUs. There's also the Windows fix for TR that'll come in the future.

Oh dear are we seriously testing TR with blender on windows? If that's the case those results are nonsense. Premiere doesn't really give you a choice, but blender....

 

speaking of Premiere, a 9900k performs better than a 2990WX in that so... no surprises there.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

We don't have to agree - but I pass up pareto charts to board members for a living, and this is intentionally skewed (whether described in the video or not there is not an Asterisk denoting that the charts are not inclusive of the entire testing environment.)

Problem is I have no idea what is skewed or what you are saying is? You'd need to explain that to me first rather than just say it is.

 

Graph reading comprehension and basic intelligence failings is the issue of the of the reader, especially if they don't bother to go read the source which explains the graph and the information in the first place.

 

 

Edit:

25 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

But in their current form, in its presentation as a slide its misleading.  They COULD have included that information, because they clearly have it (regardless of what flowery words are used in the video to make up for the false pareto on the charts).

If you mean OC performance results for blender no they couldn't include them, they don't exist or the data more rather.

 

Quote

We didn’t get a chance to overclock our loaner 2990WX, unfortunately, but Intel’s 3175X demonstrates that there is limited scaling at this level of performance. Blender is hugely thread-dependent, and cares about threads more than anything else.

 

So what? You want them to instead of reviewing the actual product they are supposed to be doing stop that, buy a 2990WX, wait for that to arrive then complete an unscheduled review of a product so you can have a few extra data points represented on a graph for a review of a different product?

 

How about we just not have the 2990WX on it at all, then it's not possible to find bias. If you intend to seek out bias you'll find it whether it's actually there or not.

 

Edit 2:

25 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Power to Performance is discussed ALL the time.  I assume its just not important this one time, I guess.

What's the issue though? Take the stock performance and stock power draw and you have the power to performance. Take the stock performance and the OC power draw and well.. you shouldn't be responsible for that task.

 

Honestly I have no idea what is misleading about placing the OC power draw in that graph, to not do so would be more of an insult to the readers because you had the data but assumed the people reading it would be incapable of understanding that stock and OC are different.

[Tristerin]

39 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Problem is I have no idea what is skewed or what you are saying is? You'd need to explain that to me first rather than just say it is.

 

Graph reading comprehension and basic intelligence failings is the issue of the of the reader, especially if they don't bother to go read the source which explains the graph and the information in the first place.

 

 

Edit:

If you mean OC performance results for blender no they couldn't include them, they don't exist or the data more rather.

 

 

So what? You want them to instead of reviewing the actual product they are supposed to be doing stop that, buy a 2990WX, wait for that to arrive then complete an unscheduled review of a product so you can have a few extra data points represented on a graph for a review of a different product?

 

How about we just not have the 2990WX on it at all, then it's not possible to find bias. If you intend to seek out bias you'll find it whether it's actually there or not.

 

Edit 2:

What's the issue though? Take the stock performance and stock power draw and you have the power to performance. Take the stock performance and the OC power draw and well.. you shouldn't be responsible for that task.

 

Honestly I have no idea what is misleading about placing the OC power draw in that graph, to not do so would be more of an insult to the readers because you had the data but assumed the people reading it would be incapable of understanding that stock and OC are different.

 

You have an opinion, and so do I.  It is wrong to show skewed results.  If YOU are okay with skewed graphs, paretos, and information - that's fine.  It sticks out like a SORE thumb to me as a data miner whose job is to graph financials. 

 

So the best way to explain it is - 1 Graph is Misleading, because the 2nd Graph is using data extrapolated from....where?  Or was it just put in to BE MISLEADING?  Its fairly misleading results whether you agree or not.  They have the information.  Or where did they get the results from, good sir?

 

To me, this was intentionally leaving the information out, so that the person perusing for information would be mislead.  It happens all the time, intentionally, and discussed here all the time - What makes this so godly able to get past your "this isn't right" meter?

 

Had they included the OC TRs bench on Blender - than its good data.  This is bad data in its current form.

 

 

 

You had a bunch of edits in between - this is wrong, they have the info.  This was either intentionally left our or mistakenly left out.  Still bad information. 

[Lathlaer]

13 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Or was it just put in to BE MISLEADING

You use that word a lot.

 

They put stock TR performance and stock TR power draw. The fact that they also included OC'ed TR power draw doesn't mean that there is something intentionally misleading. I think you are reading into this because you constructed some kind of hypothesis in your head and now are arguing just for arguing's sake.

[The Benjamins]

54 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Problem is I have no idea what is skewed or what you are saying is? You'd need to explain that to me first rather than just say it is.

 

Graph reading comprehension and basic intelligence failings is the issue of the of the reader, especially if they don't bother to go read the source which explains the graph and the information in the first place.

 

 

Edit:

If you mean OC performance results for blender no they couldn't include them, they don't exist or the data more rather.

 

 

So what? You want them to instead of reviewing the actual product they are supposed to be doing stop that, buy a 2990WX, wait for that to arrive then complete an unscheduled review of a product so you can have a few extra data points represented on a graph for a review of a different product?

 

How about we just not have the 2990WX on it at all, then it's not possible to find bias. If you intend to seek out bias you'll find it whether it's actually there or not.

 

Edit 2:

What's the issue though? Take the stock performance and stock power draw and you have the power to performance. Take the stock performance and the OC power draw and well.. you shouldn't be responsible for that task.

 

Honestly I have no idea what is misleading about placing the OC power draw in that graph, to not do so would be more of an insult to the readers because you had the data but assumed the people reading it would be incapable of understanding that stock and OC are different.

FYI, Steve from GN offically said he will be buying a 2990wx to reset due to windows FIX that wendell worked on.

 

All the 2990wx data was from Nov, when the windows scheduler was broken and could massively hurt 2990wx performance.

[Tristerin]

13 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

You use that word a lot.

 

They put stock TR performance and stock TR power draw. The fact that they also included OC'ed TR power draw doesn't mean that there is something intentionally misleading. I think you are reading into this because you constructed some kind of hypothesis in your head and now are arguing just for arguing's sake.

I do, because it is.

 

Yes it is intentional.  They chose to put this information in, while omitting any information without a denotion of why.  Im a Sarbanes Oxley auditor.  So yeah this is bad and incorrect and misleading information.  All of the Above.

 

No, the graphs are misleading, yall are hanging off Tech Jesus' nuts.  This is bad information.  The fact that its this obvious but this disregarded is funny to me.

 

If you want to quote me and question it, yes I will respond each time, how is that arguing for the sake - when the graphs...and yall..are wrong.  Because you are defending incorrect and misleading graphs.

 

EDIT - and the defense is - if you just look at all the videos and read everything you will see that he knows this isn't right.

 

Well there it is, even the author (GN) knows it aint right.  And in its raw form, these graphs are misleading data.

 

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

You had a bunch of edits in between - this is wrong, they have the info.  This was either intentionally left our or mistakenly left out.  Still bad information. 

No they don't have it, they say they don't. You say they do, which is incorrect based on the primary source of the information who say they do not. So with that sorted, they don't have it, that data can not possibly be added to the other graphs.

 

The only other option is to not put the OC power results on to the power draw graph.

 

Simple fact is one of your arguments was based on power to performance which you can correctly get from the information provided, the extra OC results doesn't make this not possible.

 

Literally the only way you can be mislead is you think the OC power draw is for the stock performance results shown in the other many graphs before it of which had no 2990WX OC performance figures and the only way that can happen is if you can't read labels on a graph.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

FYI, Steve from GN offically said he will be buying a 2990wx to reset due to windows FIX that wendell worked on.

 

All the 2990wx data was from Nov, when the windows scheduler was broken and could massively hurt 2990wx performance.

Yep, I watched the review.

 

Simple fact is though, this is an Intel W-3175X review not an AMD 2990WX so it is acceptable for there to be incomplete information for the product not being tested but is not acceptable for there to be missing information for the product being tested.

[Tristerin]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yep, I watched the review.

 

Simple fact is though, this is an Intel W-3175X review not an AMD 2990WX so it is acceptable for there to be incomplete information for the product not being tested but is not acceptable for there to be missing information for the product being tested.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Tech people hanging off Tech Jesus' nuts BAD.

 

You literally just typed that....people who are typically based off Facts. 

 

Acceptable missing information...LOLOL. 

 

I cant even, cant even.

 

At least you know its misleading.

[Tristerin]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No they don't have it, they say they don't. You say they do, which is incorrect based on the primary source of the information who say they do not. So with that sorted, they don't have it, that data can not possibly be added to the other graphs.

 

The only other option is to not put the OC power results on to the power draw graph.

 

Simple fact is one of your arguments was based on power to performance which you can correctly get from the information provided, the extra OC results doesn't make this not possible.

 

Literally the only way you can be mislead is you think the OC power draw is for the stock performance results shown in the other many graphs before it of which had no 2990WX OC performance figures and the only way that can happen is it you can't read labels on a graph.

 

There is ZERO argument here.  There is only the fact that I stated that the facts presented in these two Graphs are incorrect and misleading, which is a Fact.

 

Everything else is in between and convoluted from post to post.

 

They included the OC power draw for the pleb to think that the TR needed that much power draw to compete.  When it doesn't.  That's how I see this.  That's how its presented.

[Lathlaer]

13 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

So yeah this is bad and incorrect and misleading information.  All of the Above.

I don't think incorrect means what you think it means. 

[Tristerin]

Just now, Lathlaer said:

I don't think incorrect means what you think it means. 

Are you the 6 fingered man?