Intel’s crazy-ass 28-core Xeon W-3175X isn’t a CPU built for you, me, or most of us.

Sure, Intel pitches it as a high-end workhorse: “Built for handling heavily threaded applications and tasks, the Intel Xeon W-3175X delivers uncompromising single and all-core world class performance for the most advanced professional creators and their demanding workloads.” 

But make no mistake, the 28-core Xeon W-3175X is a chip made to do one thing: make waves and push back at an increasingly assertive AMD. And it delivers—for a pretty penny. Fasten your seat belts, because you’re about to see some huge motherboards, a huger number of benchmarks, and the hugest desktop CPU price ever. 

Gordon Mah Ung

What is Xeon W-3175X?

If you’ve read reviews of Intel’s previous 18-core Core i9-7980X or 18-core Core i9-9980X that replaced it, you already know something about the Xeon W-3175X. Like them, it’s essentially a Skylake-SP aimed at a high-performance crowd. It’s built on a 14nm process and has a stock TDP of 255 watts. To keep its cores fed, it features support for six channels of DDR4 memory in ECC or non-ECC trim.

Perhaps its most important feature may be its unlocked status. As always, Intel doesn’t actually condone overclocking, the same way Lamborghini doesn’t tell you to break local speed limit laws.

What’s in the name? Why isn’t this a Core i9? Or, maybe a Core i11? Intel didn’t say why it chose to keep the Xeon name, but in the end it doesn’t matter much. With a list price of $3,000, t’s how it performs that matters.

Gordon Mah Ung

Crazy-powerful motherboards

One look at the first two motherboards designed for Xeon, and you know this isn’t for someone to run a SQL database to manage the inventory for a supermarket. Gigabyte’s AX1 features nothing less than a 28-phase power circuit for the new Xeon W-3175X. 

Hell, the Asus Xeon W-3175X motherboard weighs 10 pounds alone. Like the AX1 it, has enough auxiliary power connectors to light up a small city.

You don’t need two 1,600-watt power supplies to run a few virtual machines. No, the only time you’d need that amount of power is for over-the-top overclocking. Yes, it’s benchmark time. 

Asus

How we tested

For our tests, we basically made quad-core and eight-core CPUs leave the building. What? Just 18 cores? Get out! No, for this slug fest we wanted to find out the eternal question of what would happen if The Hulk fought Superman. Yes, nerds, you want to only know what happens when 28-core Xeon W-3175X faces off against 32-core Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX.

For our tests, we used the same configuration as our original Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX review here.  The only variance from the original review were updated motherboard drivers, updated GPU drivers and an updated BIOS and the latest version of Microsoft Windows 10 Pro RS5. While we used the same GPU, storage and OS for both, we did vary on memory and cooling.

Gordon Mah Ung

The Threadripper 2990WX ran in quad-channel configuration with 32GB of dual-rank, DDR4/3200. The Xeon W-3175X, ran 48GB of ECC DDR4/2667in hexa-channel configuration.

For cooling, the Threadripper 2990WX used the same Enermax TR4 CLC cooler, while the Xeon W-3175X was cooled with an Asetek 690LX-PN.

The motherboard for the Xeon W-3175X was Gigabyte’s soon-to-be-released AX1, ,while the Threadripper used the same MSI X399 MEG from the original review.

One last note before we get too far: Since our last review, AMD released its “Dynamic Local Mode,” which helps keep threads on the most efficient cores in the CPU rather than let Windows randomly throw them at the wall. Normally DLM works really well, but there were moments when it slightly hurt performance. Because you have to enable DLM through Ryzen Master, we opted to run both DLM and the default configuration for our tests.

Finally, all of the tests were run at “stock clock” which oddly, means many things to many people these days. Basically, it’s the default setting on both boards. 

IDG

Xeon W-3175X 3D Modelling Performance

Sometimes we apologize for using 3D modelling tests for performance testing because it’s not really what most people are doing. Well, if you buy a 28-core Xeon or a 32-core Threadripper 3D rendering is probably your jam.

The first result is from Maxon’s Cinebench R15. Although it uses a somewhat older version of the engine than the one in its Cinema4D product, it scales with core count and thread count exceptionally well. More cores typically mean more performance 

The clear winner here is the Xeon W-3175X, which crosses the finish line about 10 percent ahead of the Threadripper 2990WX. Some will see the proximity of the AMD CPU (as you can see, turning on AMD’s dynamic local mode slightly depresses performance) and think it’s a tie—but you should remember that we are talking about 64 threads vs. 56 threads. We had expected the Threadripper 2990WX to take the win here instead of losing it.

IDG

The Threadripper’s loss to the Xeon isn’t just in Cinebench. In the Persistence of Vision ray tracer, the 32-core chip loses to the 28-core chip by about 8 percent. Again, DLM slightly depresses its performance.

IDG

Where it gets particularly ugly for Threadripper is in the Corona 1.3 Render. The Corona Renderer is an “unbiased photo-bought realistic renderer.”
Unbiased” refers to its rendering technique—not an allusion to any hardware leanings. The test embraces multi-core CPUs, so we expected iThreadripper would do better than Xeon. Nope: t to be similar to the Cinebench performance but the Xeon absolutely hammers the Threadripper to the tune of 28 percent.

IDG

Next up is the Chaos Group’s V-Ray renderer. Generally, the more cores you throw at it, the faster it gets. And yet the Xeon W-3175X again whups the Threadripper, despite the latter’s advantage in thread count. Possible reasons include each CPU’s particular micro-architecture design, the actual clock speeds each CPU runs at when loaded up, to the compiler used for each. We’ll try to circle back to find out more. 

All that is academic, though. if the only thing that matters to you is less waiting for your V-Ray or Corona-based render to finish.

IDG

Not everything is that ugly though. Using the latest beta version of Blender and Mike Pan’s BMW model, the Xeon again wins, but by just 5 percent. It’s close enough to be boring, unless, of course, you’re wondering why the extra 8 threads in Threadripper aren’t pulling their weight.

IDG

Our last multi-threaded rendering result is Blender’s new benchmark. It smashes together multiple popular benchmark models, runs them against Blender, and spits out a final result based on how long it took. There’s the option to run it against the GPU or the CPU, so we opted for the CPU test.

The result, again puts the 28-core Xeon on top by about 6 percent. Again, not a huge win, but it’s doing it against a 32-core CPU.

IDG

Want to see how it performs in mainstream apps? Keep reading to find out.

Remember when it was nearly impossible to secure a new GPU because of the cryptocurrency boom? Those days suddenly seem long over, as both AMD and Nvidia have warned of excess GPU inventory they’re trying to unload.

On Monday, Nvidia preannounced lower revenue for the fourth quarter, based on lower demand for its RTX ray-tracing technology and “excess mid-range channel inventory” of its GPUs. On Tuesday, AMD also said that while it expected its CPU business to perform strongly, it, too, is facing an oversupply in the retail channel for its GPUs. 

When the two top GPU vendors warn of too much available inventory, there’s only one traditional answer: Graphics card prices are falling, and they will likely will continue downward. 

“When we look at the GPU channel inventory, we do believe our channel partners reduced inventory in Q4, and that they will reduce inventory in Q1,” AMD chief executive Lisa Su told analysts Tuesday afternoon. “We still think that Q1 levels are elevated, and there will be some spillover into Q2, where we’ll see some elevated inventory levels. We’ll have to see how the sell-through really plays out.”

XFX

AMD’s strength belies the GPU market’s weakness

For its part, AMD reported fourth-quarter profits of $28 million, up from a loss of $19 million a year ago. AMD reported revenue of $1.42 billion, up 6 percent from the same period a year ago. But the company’s forecast of $1.25 billion is driven by “continued softness in the graphics channel” and “lower graphics sales due to excess channel inventory.”

It was a positive story for AMD, which several years ago faced quarter after quarter of losses. Now, AMD said that 65 percent of sales were coming from new products, and the company has its 2019 product lineup ready to roll. The Radeon VII is set to launch in February (with its next-gen GPU, Navi, scheduled for “later this year”). Second-gen Ryzen Mobile parts, with 3rd-generation desktop Ryzen desktop CPUs and the next-gen “Rome” Epyc server architecture, are due in the middle of 2019.

Gordon Mah Ung/IDG

“No longer are we asking if ‘AMD will survive’ or ‘if AMD will be back,’” analyst Pat Moorhead wrote in an email. “AMD is back for a while and now it’s up to AMD to prove it has staying power.”

For the fourth quarter, and potentially the first quarter of 2019, AMD will build its business on the back of its CPUs, specifically Ryzen, though that success will be offset by lower GPU sales. Over time, AMD expects that its Epyc server products, bolstered by 7nm CPU and GPU products, will begin carrying more of the load. (Revenue from AMD’s semi-custom business was flat at $433 million, due to the fact that most consoles are on their seventh year of life, executives said.)

Specifically, Su said that 30 percent more Ryzen systems are expected to launch in 2019, compared to 2018. Notebook system launches are expected to increase by more than 50 percent, she said. (Both Intel and AMD said they will expect to see continued shortages in the processor market, but confined to the low end.) 

AMD

Nvidia’s more fully exposed to lower prices

As for Nvidia, the company doesn’t expect to report its own earnings until February 14, when we’ll know more about its own GPU pricing, now and in the future. Until then, Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang summed up the quarter in this way, in a statement: “Q4 was an extraordinary, unusually turbulent, and disappointing quarter.”

Nvidia also indicated that the market reception for its RTX ray-tracing parts isn’t as strong as the company expected. “These products deliver a revolutionary leap in performance and innovation with real-time ray tracing and AI, but some customers may have delayed their purchase while waiting for lower price points and further demonstrations of RTX technology in actual games,” the company said.

Brad Chacos/IDG

AMD is looking more and more to the data center to drive profits, and Nvidia has also shifted resources to workstations and the cloud. But the blockchain/cryptocurrency technologies that once made GPUs so hard to find are apparently disappearing—Su referred to “negligible blockchain revenue.” Nvidia’s previous guidance for the fourth quarter built in “a sequential decline due to excess mid-range channel inventory following the crypto-currency boom.”

It’s no secret that GPU prices have already begun falling, and the trend apparently will continue. Over the last three months, the price of Amazon’s top seller in graphics cards, the XFX Radeon RX 580, has fallen from a high of $260 to $189. The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 Windforcespiked briefly to $250 near the holidays, but is currently at half off the MSRP at $190—even while sales of used cards remain high.

So you want to do your part to help improve the environment without giving up the luxuries technology affords you? So does Nimble.

Nimble is a relatively new company whose approach is to design high-quality, well-designed, eco-friendly battery packs and wireless chargers.

Each product comes in eco-friendly packaging and includes a bag to recycle old electronics through Nimble for free.

Note: This review is part of our roundup of wireless charging pads. Go there for details on competing products and our testing methods for both Android phones and iPhones.

The Nimble Stand is covered in fabric made from recycled water bottles & hemp. The fabric face is interrupted by only a small plastic strip toward the bottom, that when pressed from the back pops out to serve as a ledge for your phone. A kickstand folds out from the back, holding your phone at a fairly steep angle.

Alternatively, you can lay the stand flat on a surface—a rubber grip on the bottom will hold it in place, freeing you from worry that it might move across a table or desk and potentially send your phone toppling.

Power is provided to the wireless charger via the included QC3.0 wall USB-C adapter and the USB-C input on the left side of the stand. Just above the input port, there’s an indicator light and a standard USB port so you can charge a smartwatch or another device without using two outlets.

Performance-wise, the Nimble Stand is Qi compatible and provides 10W output for Android devices, and 7.5W for the iPhone.

When charging an iPhone XR over the course of an hour, the Nimble Stand averaged 45 percent of an overall charge—mind you, on a larger-capacity battery than in the iPhone X and XS we’ve used to test in the past. This average bests the iON Wireless Stand and is currently the fastest wireless charging pad we’ve tested for any iOS device.

Charging performance on a Samsung Galaxy S9 showed impressive results as well. On average, the Nimble Stand took 162 minutes to fully charge an S9. That’s good enough for second-best out of the pads we’ve tested thus far. (The best being our top pick for Android, the Anker PowerWave 7.5 Stand, which charged the S9 from empty to full in 146 minutes.)

Overall, I have just one minor gripe about the Nimble Stand: On one occasion the ledge that pops out of the stand slid back into the housing of the pad without any interaction on my part, letting the phone fall to the table. But overall that incident is outweighed by the stand’s impressive performance, attractive design, and reasonable price. 

Indeed, this $50 wireless charging pad does it all.

This story, “Nimble Stand review: A thoughtful, well-designed wireless charging pad” was originally published by

Greenbot.