3 ms·

The framing in the introduction discusses VFX workloads, and this is recurring theme in throughout the article. The conclusion of the article is that if you nee

The framing in the introduction discusses VFX workloads, and this is recurring theme in throughout the article. The conclusion of the article is that if you need high core counts and clock speed with large working sets in RAM, then this is the right choice. VFX and rendering represent one sort of workload that benefits from this type of hardware. Simulations and CAD workloads can also benefit. There's no indication or suggestion that this is a good choice for a generic desktop system (note that desktop and workstation are different segments). The type of workload that you'd be buying a $1K+ CPU (this includes Threadripper and excludes desktop Ryzen) is the sort of thing that needs some form of specialized hardware. Maybe that's lots of IO (via 64+ PCIe gen4 lanes), or maybe lots of cores, or maybe lots of RAM (via 4-8 channels and support for registered DIMMs). If you have one of those needs, then it's probably worth a tradeoff of a few hundred MHz of low-utilization peak clock frequency. That said, with low core counts, the highlighted CPU clocks >4GHz. That's on Zen2 cores, so it is largely similar to what you'd see at similar clocks in Ryzen desktop CPUs. If you want lots of general purpose workloads, go check out benchmarks for Ryzen 3000-series. There is ample coverage of these processors.

StillBored 6y ago
Yes, workstations have a lot of varying workloads, but they are fundamentally high end desktops because people sit in front of monitors attached to them. The high clock rates advantage the single threaded parts of the workload, otherwise one is better off with more lower clocked/efficient cores. Many of the vfx, engineering, etc workloads can (and are) also run as batch jobs on server farms. So, frequently what your looking for is a desktop that can do quick single user trial runs, and then the whole thing is farmed out to the cluster for the final product. But there are also segments (like building code) where the workload actually may have long sections of single threaded work. AKA, the machine burns through a bunch of cores in parallel, then it sits around with a single core linking/packaging/etc (yes I know some build systems can parallelize that too). So again my point is that if all you need are a pile of cores your not looking for a workstation, your looking for a server which is tuned for max throughput across a lot of cores. Frequently this means running more cores in a more energy efficient configuration (lower clocks/etc).

StillBored 6y ago

Yes, workstations have a lot of varying workloads, but they are fundamentally high end desktops because people sit in front of monitors attached to them. The high clock rates advantage the single threaded parts of the workload, otherwise one is better off with more lower clocked/efficient cores. Many of the vfx, engineering, etc workloads can (and are) also run as batch jobs on server farms. So, frequently what your looking for is a desktop that can do quick single user trial runs, and then the whole thing is farmed out to the cluster for the final product. But there are also segments (like building code) where the workload actually may have long sections of single threaded work. AKA, the machine burns through a bunch of cores in parallel, then it sits around with a single core linking/packaging/etc (yes I know some build systems can parallelize that too). So again my point is that if all you need are a pile of cores your not looking for a workstation, your looking for a server which is tuned for max throughput across a lot of cores. Frequently this means running more cores in a more energy efficient configuration (lower clocks/etc).