At first I was a bit surprised by the wattage, until I realized that's 3.75W per core, or 1.875W per thread. That's actually really impressive, when you consider a 5950X max TDP is 8.875W per core.

that's a butt load of cores

Poor Intel... what they should do counter the Ryzen 7XXX series?!?!

Borys:

Poor Intel... what they should do counter the Ryzen 7XXX series?!?!

With LOTS of e-cores! Jokes aside, I think they'll be fine, especially in gaming.

Now that's a piece of silicon awesomeness!

Ivrogne:

With LOTS of e-cores! Jokes aside, I think they'll be fine, especially in gaming.

yeah probably Intel will be fine in the gaming sector, but in workstation and server they need products to compete with monsters like this, they are still selling overpriced xeon cpus like hot cakes but that wont happen forever unless they innovate with monster CPUs too

one of the reasons Google went with 100% AMD utilization in the server stacks is because of their "Green" initiative of carbon neutrality. it's far easier running a server farm off of a solar plant with a demand for under 4 watts/core or 2 watts/thread. and this is a reason made more compelling by scale. and when you're on the scale of Google or AWS all you can do is think, "wait a minute..more capable, faster operating, far more energy efficient, costs less, ans will save me millions of dollars in energy usage." - DONE

Ya , that's a monster ain't it.

Just 10 years ago, you had to run dual cpus just to reach 24 threads..... I love it. Ryzen really has brought the computer world out of the dark ages.

reix2x:

yeah probably Intel will be fine in the gaming sector, but in workstation and server they need products to compete with monsters like this, they are still selling overpriced xeon cpus like hot cakes but that wont happen forever unless they innovate with monster CPUs too

On what basis will they be fine in ANY segment post zen4 & once amd's supply improves? These results clearly show they are behind on every metric in every segment & market. Even the last gen amd am4 based 5800x3d trumps intel's (probably loss making) Alder Lake bid for gaming supremacy, let alone against imminent Zen4. intel has only been selling in the booming server space due to the absence of amd product - the desperate have had no choice but xeon.

Agonist:

Just 10 years ago, you had to run dual cpus just to reach 24 threads.....

Huh? That's not true. There were 16-core Opterons in 2011, with multi-socket support (I know quad socket was available in 2012, not sure about 2011). In 2011, Intel had 10c/20t CPUs, also with up to quad socket support. Since we're talking servers, back in 2010, IBM's POWER7 had single CPUs with 8c/32t. They could even reach 4.25GHz, which was not only really high back then but absurd for servers. But the one to really top them all was SPARC, which in 2010 had 8c/128t. Granted, all of the above were crap: SPARC was only good at very specific workloads and was really only built for Solaris, which nobody used. IBM's stuff was ok but way too expensive, power-hungry, and difficult to develop for at the time. I believe AMD's was based on Bulldozer. I don't have to explain that any further. Intel's was really the only decent option and as such, made them dominate the server market for nearly a decade forward. However, their chips were also seriously overpriced. In any case, I get your point. It is amusing how (thanks to Ryzen), 32 threads is now high-end mainstream, and we're seeing single CPUs with more cores than what most servers 10 years years ago couldn't achieve in total thread count on a quad-socket motherboard. Not just that, but these beasts of CPUs are cheaper. I remember 10 years ago, Intel had CPUs sold for $20k. Hilariously, they still make such overpriced crap: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/intel-xeon-platinum-8180-25ghz-28c-56t-104gt-s-38mb-cache-turbo-ht-205w-ddr4-2666-ck/apd/338-blnz/processors

schmidtbag:

Huh? That's not true. There were 16-core Opterons in 2011, with multi-socket support (I know quad socket was available in 2012, not sure about 2011). In 2011, Intel had 10c/20t CPUs, also with up to quad socket support. Since we're talking servers, back in 2010, IBM's POWER7 had single CPUs with 8c/32t. They could even reach 4.25GHz, which was not only really high back then but absurd for servers. But the one to really top them all was SPARC, which in 2010 had 8c/128t. Granted, all of the above were crap: SPARC was only good at very specific workloads and was really only built for Solaris, which nobody used. IBM's stuff was ok but way too expensive, power-hungry, and difficult to develop for at the time. I believe AMD's was based on Bulldozer. I don't have to explain that any further. Intel's was really the only decent option and as such, made them dominate the server market for nearly a decade forward. However, their chips were also seriously overpriced. In any case, I get your point. It is amusing how (thanks to Ryzen), 32 threads is now high-end mainstream, and we're seeing single CPUs with more cores than what most servers 10 years years ago couldn't achieve in total thread count on a quad-socket motherboard. Not just that, but these beasts of CPUs are cheaper. I remember 10 years ago, Intel had CPUs sold for $20k. Hilariously, they still make such overpriced crap: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/intel-xeon-platinum-8180-25ghz-28c-56t-104gt-s-38mb-cache-turbo-ht-205w-ddr4-2666-ck/apd/338-blnz/processors

Consumer level you had to run dual xeon setups to do this. 1366 was the only cheap option. Back in 2016 I was able to buy a Supermicro dual 1366 board for $99, 24GB DDR3 1333 ECC for $35, 2 x5650s for $50, and 2 212 Evos for $50, EVGA 650 GQ bronze for $70, and had my own 24 thread plex, and game stream server. Not sorry but AMD Opterons were slow as hell for anything. My 1920x was $700 brand new 5 years ago. $400 for the X399 Taichi, and $250 for 32GB quad channel 3000 DDR4. Granted its a much better setup with way more features, but damn it wasnt cheaper lol I had to run dual X5650s to have 24 threads and not spend stupid amounts for a LGA 2011 setup where you could do 2x 16 thread cpus.

Agonist:

Consumer level you had to run dual xeon setups to do this. 1366 was the only cheap option. Back in 2016 I was able to buy a Supermicro dual 1366 board for $99, 24GB DDR3 1333 ECC for $35, 2 x5650s for $50, and 2 212 Evos for $50, EVGA 650 GQ bronze for $70, and had my own 24 thread plex, and game stream server. Not sorry but AMD Opterons were slow as hell for anything.

Is it really consumer if you're getting dual Xeon though? Also, note my comment about the Opterons.

schmidtbag:

Is it really consumer if you're getting dual Xeon though? Also, note my comment about the Opterons.

It is if I am just a consumer and not paying company prices. I didn't pay $1000 for each cpu.

i would love to see this kinda efficiency in desktop world