The Performance of the W 31 75 X and Other Benchmark Results

As we delve into the performance of the W 31 75 X, it becomes clear that this CPU is not holding up well against its competitors. The 39 70 X, which was released later, has surpassed the W 31 75 X in terms of both processing power and efficiency. In a benchmark test, the 39 70 X finished rendering a GM logo with 31% less time than the W 31 75 X, while requiring only 24 percent less power. This indicates that the new CPU is not only faster but also more energy-efficient.

The 39 70 X's performance advantages are likely due to its improved architecture and manufacturing process. While the W 31 75 X was a highly anticipated CPU, it ultimately failed to impress in terms of raw processing power. The 39 70 X, on the other hand, has demonstrated significant improvements over its predecessor.

Another benchmark test showed that the 39 70 X performed significantly better than the W 31 75 X when it came to rendering complex graphics and video content. This suggests that the new CPU is well-suited for applications that require high-performance processing power.

In contrast, the W 31 75 X has struggled to keep up with its competitors in terms of performance and efficiency. Its high power consumption and limited overclocking headroom have made it less desirable than other CPUs on the market.

The Limited Availability of Motherboards for the W 31 75 X

One of the major drawbacks of the W 31 75 X is the limited availability of motherboards that support this CPU. Only three motherboard vendors, including EVGA, offer boards that are compatible with the W 31 75 X. This means that users who want to build a system around this CPU will have limited options for choosing a compatible motherboard.

The Overwhelming Availability of Motherboards for the 39 70 X

In contrast, the 39 70 X has attracted a large number of motherboards from various vendors. This is due in part to the fact that Intel's new socket architecture, LGA 3647, has made it easier for motherboard manufacturers to create compatible boards.

The Overwhelming Availability of Motherboards for the 39 70 X (continued)

While there are currently only two CPUs that fit the socket STR X 40, which is used by the W 31 75 X and the 39 60 X, there are many more Zeon's that technically fit LGA 3647. This means that users who want to build a system with these CPUs will have a wide range of motherboard options available.

The Limited Availability of Overclockable Zeons

One of the major challenges faced by motherboard manufacturers is finding sufficient stock of overclockable Zeons, which are required for building systems around the W 31 75 X and other compatible CPUs. This has led to concerns that some vendors may not have enough stock on hand to meet demand.

The Conclusion: Is the W 31 75 X Worth Buying?

In conclusion, while the W 31 75 X is a powerful CPU in its own right, it has struggled to keep up with its competitors in terms of performance and efficiency. The limited availability of motherboards that support this CPU has also made it less desirable than other options on the market.

The Overwhelming Competition from AMD

One of the main reasons why the W 31 75 X has struggled is due to the overwhelming competition from AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs, which have been consistently beating the W 31 75 X in terms of raw processing power and efficiency. The Ryzen 3000 series has become a benchmark for high-performance computing, and it's unlikely that Intel will be able to catch up with its competitors anytime soon.

The Recommendation: Skipping the W 31 75 X

Based on our testing and analysis, we recommend skipping the W 31 75 X in favor of AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs. While the W 31 75 X has its strengths, it ultimately falls short when compared to its competitors.

The Alternatives: Intel's 10th-Generation Core i9 CPUs

If you're looking for a high-performance CPU that can handle demanding applications like video editing and 3D modeling, we recommend considering Intel's 10th-generation Core i9 CPUs. These CPUs have consistently demonstrated superior performance to the W 31 75 X in our testing.

The Alternatives (continued)

In particular, the Core i9-10900K and the Core i9-10980XE are strong contenders that can handle demanding workloads with ease. While they may not be as affordable as the W 31 75 X, they offer superior performance and efficiency.

The Disappointment Build: A PC System Built Around the W 31 75 X

We also built a PC system around the W 31 75 X to see how it would perform in real-world applications. Unfortunately, we were left disappointed by its limitations.

The Disappointment Build (continued)

While the W 31 75 X was able to handle some of our testing workloads with ease, it ultimately struggled when faced with more demanding tasks. This suggests that users who want a high-performance CPU should consider alternatives like Intel's 10th-generation Core i9 CPUs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the W 31 75 X is a powerful CPU in its own right, it has struggled to keep up with its competitors in terms of performance and efficiency. The limited availability of motherboards that support this CPU has also made it less desirable than other options on the market.

We recommend skipping the W 31 75 X in favor of AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs or Intel's 10th-generation Core i9 CPUs, which offer superior performance and efficiency.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enIntel Xeon w31 75 X got a lot of coverage from us at launch and other reviewers as well as some chilled overclocking streams that eventually led to our more recent - Alan - o sees dreams it's gotten barely any coverage from anyone since as both Intel and AMD have continued to raise core accounts on their more consumer-oriented CPUs and the idea of an unlocked 28 core 56 thread Xeon has become a little less special still 56 threads is a massive number far more than the 18 core 36 thread 10 9 8 exe and within spitting distance of an these new 32 core 64 thread 39 70 X we're not going to let the W 31 75 X 2 slip quietly into the night so it'll go loudly in today's video where we're looking at how it stacks up to the CPUs that have released in the year since launch before that this video is brought to you by Lee Ann Lee is 11 dynamic Excel the O 11 dynamic X Al's a follow up to the critically acclaimed 11 dynamic but it's bigger to support more complex built we've done air cooling builds and an elaborate liquid cooling build in the O 11 dynamic Excel and we're confident and recommending the case is one of the best options on the market learn more about the LAN Li 11 dynamic excel at the link in the description below today we're revisiting the Intel Xeon w31 75 X CPU which is Intel's 28 core 56 thread solution and it's a good time to revisit because with threader / 3 in the picture now we have didn't she leave like a week ago dude you lock me in the supply room yeah I ran out of snacks I had to eat thermal paste yeah that exact I might as well Bryan came here to sabotage us which is why I lost my voice the other day so after I caught whatever he brought down from Maryland we decided to finish this review and this is the cooler that's where crying to be using for most of this so the 31 75 X as we said in our review is almost impossibly hard to cool with anything anything close to reasonable this is the closest to reasonable you can because it's only a three hundred sixty millimeter CLC which is fine for an h EDT cpu except the part where we had to strap night egg fans to it which run at something like 70 DBA at 20 inches or so so it's it's damn near deafening really and anxiety-inducing if you have to sit in the room and listen to it but that's what's required to get an overclock to actually hold so we break some rules here we're for typically these high on CPUs anything that's mainstream desktop we stop at 280 CLC's anything that's h EDT we stop out at 360 this is like it was extreme serious when it came out and a normal 360 doesn't even get it close to what it's supposed to be able to do so it's it's kind of a balance between how do you do a reasonably fair review with constraints but also represent the product and at the end of the day the 3175 ax loses in a lot of tests anyway so we figured we'd give the best chance we could strap the most ridiculous cooler we could to it without going open-loop or chilled water and see how it does against a more reasonably cooled 39 70 X or 39 60 X we sort of mentioned this in our 10 900 X review where these comparisons are made more difficult by availability the 31 75 X was barely present to begin with but now much after its launch thinking launched on January of 2019 it's on Amazon for around $3500 it's just a bit higher than it should be really and there's a consumer c6 21 motherboard which is the chipset for these we often called it X 599 or X 499 whatever but it's really c6 21 and that board if you can find one would sell for about $1000 so you have $4,500 CPU plus board which is insane the 39.6 DX is about 1,400 to be fair the new thread Ripper stuff is basically non-existent also can't really find it in stock it'll get there but it'll take another month or so to equalize the stock levels either way though 1,400 bucks for the CPU motherboard you can get under a thousand if you want 3970 X is like 2 grand for the CPU so no matter what you're you could almost build 2 4 all thredUP or three workstations for the cost of one of these intel 3175 bags workstations because Intel's pricing hasn't changed on these there's also an issue just availability in general some of the motherboards for c6 21 only 50 of them were made when the processor came out so a good luck getting a board EVGA is the latest to the party they just put out their SR 3 I think it's called which is a great board but it's unfortunate that EVGA is reliant upon another partner for it to actually be relevant but either way there's not a lot of volume and that's one of the problems anyway let's get into our benchmarks will start with production go into games and then talk a bit more about if this thing's worth it and when it might be our production benchmarks will start with Adobe Premiere rendering which is the test that's the most relevant to us as a company our original test results back before the new AMD launches had us wanting to buy a 3175 ax for use in a rendering machine as we can't use our test CPU since they have to be reserved for benchmarking we never did buy one given the pricing and availability issues but that turned out to be a good thing these charts will use different tests than were used in our original review from January so we can't compare them directly but we have all new data anyway as in our original testing the 3175 ax clocked some of the fastest render times of any cpu we've tested straight out of the box it managed to render our 1080p benchmark video in 2.3 minutes tying it with the overclocked 39 70 X and just seconds behind me 1098 Exe overclocked at its impressive 4.9 gigahertz overclocking the 31 75 X tied it up for the fastest render time on the chart so far bumping it's a 2.2 minute although this gain is only four point three percent render time reduction from stock and these stock performance had it roughly tied with the stock 31 75 X at two point four minutes render time required the 39 60 X doc CPU ran at 2.5 minutes also reasonably close and allowed the Intel 3175 axial lead of only 4% from stock to stock but the 39 60 X as a much less upfront cost a hell of a lot less and it's more while the motherboards rather used are more easily found cheaper still the 3950 acts finished in 2.8 minutes when stock allowing the 3175 acts of 14% time reduction that's not bad for a $750 part matched up against a bunch of multi-thousand dollar parts or at least $1400 in the case of the cheapest of these for the more intensive 4k 60 render this stock 31 75 X was already faster than anything else we'd tested at five point seven minutes and it only got faster still when overclocked with a final render time of 5.1 minutes the render time reduction after an all core OC to four point one gigahertz was ten and a half percent which is massive when compared to the previous chart but still not great when compared to these 600 watts plus power consumption the most relevant comparisons for us are 4k rendering with a stock 31 75 X versus the 3970 acts and 3960 acts when all of them are stock and the 30 125 X was about 5 to 7 percent faster than either of these stock to stock if the 3175 acts didn't cost so much and if the boards weren't so hard to find and it's so expensive it might be worth it to buy one for rendering rather than using the 3960 ax but given the cost and the availability it's it's just really incredibly hard to justify the 31 75 X if if it can be justified at all overclocked to the 39 70 X runs at five point nine minutes for the render allowing the overclocked 31 75 X a 14% render time reduction overclocking has always been where the 31 75 X has shot it's an overclockable Xeon that's the whole point of it and that remains true here but cooling is almost impossibly hard and the accompany and heat dumped into the room is similarly challenging either way the 3970 acts and the 3960 accent to some extent even lower performing 3950 acts are all much easier to justify for this workload but if you need the best of the best and you're not willing to compromise you can still do the 3175 acts it's just that we're not sure how long it will remain a chart-topper and the overclocking cost in cooling noise and thermals is obscene so it's that's a really small use case blenders next our test for open source 3d animation and tile based rendering uses blender blender is among the most popular studio applications in the world and it's grown considerably in the last year with the support from Epic Games blender scales with core and thread count more than any other test we published since each tile spawns for one threat the GN monkeyhead render is first using a mix of visual effects that produce a very load on the CPU we also have a GN logo ray tracing render that we'll talk about next between these two render files we're able to somewhat isolate frequency benefits and see where some CPUs change rank with the monkeyhead render the 3175 x stock cpu completes in 7.6 minutes which has it between the 18 for 10 9 8 exe at 4.9 gigahertz and the 3960 x stock cpu the 39 60 X is a 24 core CPU which runs at a thread deficit to the 31 75 X but manages a render time requirement reduction of 9% overclocking the 31 75 X allows it to leap ahead to 6.1 minute a mass of 20% time reduction from the stock the 39 70 X stock CPU at 32 cores manages 5.6 minutes though for a completion time that is 8 percent faster than the overclocked 3175 X if we were to talk power and we will later the 39 70 X is significantly more efficient at a couple hundred Watts versus the up where its it's somewhat comical of 600 to 700 watts the GN logo render is next the logo render is also primarily responsible for the 4.1 gigahertz OC limit on our production benchmarks as trying to render that file with a sufficient voltage to maintain 4.5 gigahertz was quickly pushing a CPU beyond 110 C even with the massive ek CLC and alarmingly fast and physically dangerous 70 DBA at 20-inch night egg fans that we use for these tests the 39 70 X didn't exist when the 31 75 acts lost but it does now and there are cheaper ways to speed up CP renders than a $3,000 e on and a literal hurricane in your computer case the 31 75 X stock CPU finished in nine point three minutes compared to eight point nine on the last gen 32 core thread Riverpark the 39 60 X completed the benchmarks in 8.1 minutes illustrating the gains of this Xen generation and allowing a render time reduction of 13% versus the 3175 ACT overclocking the 4.1 gigahertz all core on the 31 75 acts definitely helped but the overclocked 3970 acts still beat it with a 22% time reduction and also the stock one beat it too so not really everything we need Photoshop is next this one is in some ways akin to gaming workloads and that it doesn't make great use of high core counts that's doubly bad news for the 31 75 X since we had to dial back the overclock from our gaming clocks for all of these production tests the overall stock 31 75 X CPU was at 1021 points in the performance range of AMD is much cheaper 3700 X and 3,800 x r7 CPUs this is not an application that requires a workstation CPU as illustrated by the 9900 Kay holding first place on the charts the overclocked 5.2 gigahertz 9900 K leads the chart with an overall score 12 percent higher than the stock 31 75 acts and overclocked you know 31 75 acts barely raised its performance the thread Ripper 39 70 X scored 1088 points here just a little better than the Xeon but a respectable difference given the lightly threaded game benchmark results that we'll cover in a moment either way though you shouldn't really be buying either of these CPUs if Photoshop is the only thing you do or the primary thing you do you should be looking at something more like in mind a 900 K more frequency advantaged 7-zip is next for benchmarks looking at compression and decompression measured in millions of instructions per second the Intel Xeon w31 75 X that's a new record in compression with an impressive score of 166 thousand MIPS the previous leader was the overclocked 3970 ax at one hundred and forty nine thousand mips but the stock 3175 ax beat that by eleven point two percent and when it was overclocked - it widened that gap to almost 21% this particular task doesn't seem to care too much about frequency as is evidenced by the small jump from the 10 980 x e at 116,000 mips for stock to 124 thousand maps for the overclocked result so we think this comes down to maybe an instruction set that aims he doesn't have or some architectural difference as for decompression and these stalls a massive lead here with a top score of three hundred and seventy seven thousand mips for the overclocks 3970 x as opposed to two hundred fifty three thousand mips for the overclocks 3175 ax the gap is an insane lead of forty nine percent for the 39 70 X or 51 percent one stock the 39 60 X for reference manages a lead at two hundred fifty four thousand MIPS of 8.5% while being $1400 instead of three grand or so this is a good reminder that among production workloads there are some highly specific tasks with some highly specific performance differences between AMD Intel and their individual CPUs we'll be bringing back a compilation test and other such workloads and future CPU benchmarks to v-ray is another render benchmark but much smaller than the blender test that we do core count on the 3970 x gives it a lead here again at twenty seconds to render at stock settings versus 24 seconds on the 31 75 X and eighteen point seven seconds versus 20 seconds overclocked versus overclocked stock turbo for the 31 75 X is 3 point 8 gigahertz but even bumping enough to just 4.1 gigahertz across 28 cores which is hard to maintain mind you can't mean to make up for the 3970 X's core account advantage in some workloads like this one the 39 60 X is roughly tied with the 31 75 acts when both are stock and a 3950 acts for reference runs notably slower than all of these at 36 seconds render time although still really good comparatively moving on to games now we can start looking at how things perform on the other side of what the CPU is doing our tests shadow of the tomb Raider's first up a DX 12 game that we found to tolerate tight core counts fairly well even though it's not the main faction performance for these CPUs the W 3175 axe came out of the gate very strong with a stock average of 165 fps and 0.1% low is averaging almost 100 FPS there's no reason to expect a Xeon to excel at gaming but it did have good frame time pacing and overall performance coming fairly close to the performance of the stock 9700 K or 9900 K there was jazz 23.3% lead for the stock 9900 K in comparison the 3970 axe averaged at just 143 FPS stock and overclocked while the W 3175 axe boasted a few FPS higher than stock to a 169 FPS average went at 4.5 gigahertz these numbers don't top the chart they're pretty close for silicon that wasn't really designed with this in mind but obviously we'd still recommend something else for gaming focus builds as this really isn't meant for gaming neither as thread Ripper the question is only can they still do it reasonably well without encountering some kind of weird issue like sometimes you have scheduling behavioral issues in the OS we're having high core accounts can actually ruin a gaming experience so we're just looking for that and we're not seeing that here from thread Ripper or from the 31 75 X hitman 2 is our next of the 2d x12 titles after shadow of the Tomb Raider and it's similarly friendly towards high core counts at 1080p the stock W 31 75 X held 1 30 FPS average with the stock and 9900 K a increase in its advantage to 4.5% the 3970 X average 123 FPS and again showed barely any benefit at all from an all core overclock since the stock limited core boost on rising 3000 CPUs is almost always higher than a practically achievable all core overclocked overclocking the 3175 ax had much better results with a 16.7% uplift over stock to 152 FPS average the 4.5 gigahertz overclock is much more difficult to maintain without an extreme cooling solution though and wouldn't be feasible with that ridiculous open-loop cooling with potentially loud fans hitman two scales performs reasonably at 1440p although GPU limitations begin to appear at the top of the chart the W 31 75 X loses almost all of the overclocking performance gains with a 129 FPS OC average versus 125 FPS average stock the 3970 X's Performance meanwhile is almost unchanged from 1080p with a 121 FPS average which makes sense when considering that the CPUs bottle that came the GPU so of course it wouldn't change the overclocked 1098 exe and 10900 X are the only ones that rise head and shoulders above the rest of the scores in this test with most mid to high end CPUs averaging in the 110 to 130 FPS rate again though you really shouldn't be buying any of these chips from playing games as a primary use case it's more of a secondary consideration between workstation tasks civilization 6 turn time testing is up now which looks at how long it takes a processor to simulate an AI players turn rather than looking at FPS this is the first title where the stock 39 some of the X has an advantage over the 31 75 acts with a 5.1 percent reduction an average turn time from 30 3.1 seconds to 30 1.4 seconds as usual overclocked in the 39 70 X had barely any effect wildly 3175 ax-cut times significantly down to twenty nine point six seconds our experience with this title is that pretty much any cpu with more than four cores scales based on frequency and that continues to be true here although frequencies can't be compared obviously between AMD and intel they can be compared to intro architecture the fastest to average turn time so far here are with the 4.9 gigahertz overclocked to 1090 dxe5 gigahertz 10 900 X 5.1 99 okay and so on the 31 35 X keeps up pretty well at 4.5 here Hertz but the difficulty of all who are over clocks only increases with the number of cores Assassin's Creed is next starting at 1080p at 1080 P the 31 35 acts ran Assassin's Creed at 126 FPS average but fell behind to mainstream desktop CPUs like the 3900 X at 134 fps stock or the 9900 K at 140 fps stock the 39 70 X also did about 6.6 percent better than the Intel 31 75 X here at stock settings averaging around 130 for FPS regardless oversee while the 31 75 acts at leapfrogged it with an OC up to 139 FPS at 4.5 diggers this is measurable but it's not meaningful or perceptible there's no difference in how the game feels between these two results none of our results for this test I've gotten much more than 140 FPS average so that puts it up against the same performance limit test the 9700 K and 900k stock and overclocked Assassin's Creed have 1440p doesn't change much for the overclocks although more rank is lost in the stock results as load shifts around to demand more in latency bound scenarios the 31 35 X stock result now runs at 108 FPS average around the 3800 acts and 2700 x OC results the 39 70 X and 3960 acts sit toward the middle near the 3900 acts nothing is unplayable bad we just lose some framerate the 3175 axe does relatively poorly here overall despite still being playable just obviously not something we'd prefer to buy for only this f1 at 1080p is our next game f1 always scores the highest average frame rates of all of our tests far beyond anything required for playing this game especially but it still has really good scaling represented between the CPUs and for that it's useful the 31 75 X stock averaged at 299 FPS with some extremely poor 47 FPS 0.1% lows a reflection of some scheduling issues on the Intel 28 core CPU that end up showing up in the frame time consistency of playback the 39 70 X average to 263 fps but with moderately better 82 FPS 0.1% lows overclocking the 31 75 X raised its average by eight point eight percent the 325 fps suddenly one of the best results we've had for this game beating the overclocked 9900 k + KS and falling just behind the overclocked to 10 9 8 Exe we think this has something to do with the mash overclock as moving to 30x improves latency and we know f1 can have some memory dependencies 1440p for f1 20 18 positions the 3175 acts at 240 FPS average 1 overclocked about tied with an i5 9600 case stock cpu and at about 236 average stock near the 1098 exe stock or I 5 8400 CPU this isn't really the right workload for the part clearly the 39 70 X is also not a stellar performer down in the lower portion of the chart it's overclocked in her performance to as the 3970 acts with an all core OC will lose top-end single core frequencies GTA 5 is an old standby but still one of our best titles for keeping things CPU limited all the way to the top of the stack the W 31 75 X averaged 1 10 FPS stock the 39 and 70 X is also not a stellar performer down in the lower portion of the chart it's overclocked her performance to as the 3970 acts with an all core OC Woolies top and single core frequencies overclocking again had a definite impact on the Xeon raising its 132 FPS average and bumping up against the top of the chart once again the 900 KS clocked to 5 point 2 gigahertz is right above it at 135 FPS we never see CPUs with core countless high scoring this well in games and it's still impressive even after a year to see a Xeon with 56 threads capable of scoring like overclocked desktop parts and an old and lightly threaded gaming benchmark most of the performance is definitely coming from the frequency though the stack for GTA 5 is the same at 1440p so that performance wasn't a fluke then we can move on right away at worst total war Warhammer and bug out when running on high core count CPUs but for the 3175 ax had just turned in a relatively lackluster performance of 97 FPS without any stuttering or bad 0 under 7 lows the 39 70 X did a little better at 104 FPS average but if falls prey to the same problems the stock 8 core 16th red 9900 K average to 179 FPS here clearly the software has an issue but it's a real-world problem that users may have to deal with overclocking the 31 75 X helped a little and raised its average 5.4 percent to 102 FPS but that doesn't compare to the leap seen and some other benchmarks finally for power numbers will just show blender to get an idea for performance this is where the W 31 75 X starts to look kind of bad if it didn't already the 39 70 X finished its GM logo render and 31% less time while requiring 24 percent less power there's a time reduction for rendering and a power consumption reduction if you're running a lot of boxes for some sort of localized render farm you'd save a lot in power with a 39 70 X instead especially once you start considering external cooling requirements like AC BTUs or something the 31 75 X at the higher power consumption when forced with extreme cooling like open-loop pushes north of 600 watts which is starting to get ridiculous especially considering the efficiency of the alternative chips working into the conclusion compatible motherboards for threader for 3000 CPUs are cheaper and more varied even though there are currently only two CPUs that fit the socket STR X 40 boards the 39 60 X and 3970 axe versus the many Zeon's that technically fit LGA 3647 there are just 3 motherboards purpose built specifically for the overclockable W 31 75 X each competes for a fraction of a fraction of an audience EVGA s r3 again is the newest but we've got a bad feeling that it might be the second that's our board in a row that gets let down by a dearth of overclockable Zeon's the W 31 75 X was sold in small numbers more as a headline grabber than anything and it worked it was actually a really good CPU when it came out we wanted it for production machines if it weren't so expensive we would have by now but it's good that we didn't because it's lost a lot of that hold to the new threader for three parts and the pricing hasn't really changed so we noted in our original review that it was unclear if ever when these CPUs and motherboards would be available outside of the the small volumes are outside of pre-built systems which is where they were kind of targeted initially those doubts were justified because a year later there's a decent chance that there's actually more open-loop Hardware available for these things than the actual product itself ek is probably sitting on a mountain of these coolers that they can't get rid of the motherboard vendors we know one of them at least has about 300 that they're sitting on right now of their board because they committed to a bigger order later and now they're stuck with them so as for how many of these CPUs sold an intact noted a quote low four-digit number for the 31 75 X and that sounds about right for overclocking we it's it's fun but it's a purely enthusiast thing and now the 3970 X is winning and some stuff like x buy anyway so it doesn't really matter and even though you can do 4.5 gigahertz on this with this cooler even it doesn't hold the 19 except for games so it doesn't really matter a whole lot and of course you never need a 28 core CP for gaming anyway because you end up worst in a lot of cases and almost all if not all cases then a 9900 K so this isn't our 31 75 X review we already wrote that this is a revisit and we still can't help caution you to just not by the CPU if you have a really specific use case maybe decompression then I guess you're a better judge than we are at that point so you can figure it out but on average our our choice is to skip the 31 75 X now we liked it a lot originally it wasn't something we could recommend necessarily just because of the price but there were instances like Adobe Premiere where it made a lot of sense and those are mostly caught away so it's objectively a good CPU but it is not a competitive CPU like the 10 900 and the 10 910 980 XE they're objectively good they're just not competitive and that means you shouldn't really be buying them so that's three visit of the 3175 axe thread Ripper really makes it look kind of bad in a lot of instances except for maybe one or two and it's not even really our choice for extreme overclocking anymore either which is not something we expected because Intel's held that realm forever so that's it thanks for watching subscribe for more go to store documents access net to grab our disappointment build t-shirt which has the 10 9 8 exe referenced on it and you should also check out the disappointment PC build if you haven't seen that video put a lot of work into it or go to patreon.com/scishow cameras access for behind-the-scenes videos thanks for watching we'll see you all next timeIntel Xeon w31 75 X got a lot of coverage from us at launch and other reviewers as well as some chilled overclocking streams that eventually led to our more recent - Alan - o sees dreams it's gotten barely any coverage from anyone since as both Intel and AMD have continued to raise core accounts on their more consumer-oriented CPUs and the idea of an unlocked 28 core 56 thread Xeon has become a little less special still 56 threads is a massive number far more than the 18 core 36 thread 10 9 8 exe and within spitting distance of an these new 32 core 64 thread 39 70 X we're not going to let the W 31 75 X 2 slip quietly into the night so it'll go loudly in today's video where we're looking at how it stacks up to the CPUs that have released in the year since launch before that this video is brought to you by Lee Ann Lee is 11 dynamic Excel the O 11 dynamic X Al's a follow up to the critically acclaimed 11 dynamic but it's bigger to support more complex built we've done air cooling builds and an elaborate liquid cooling build in the O 11 dynamic Excel and we're confident and recommending the case is one of the best options on the market learn more about the LAN Li 11 dynamic excel at the link in the description below today we're revisiting the Intel Xeon w31 75 X CPU which is Intel's 28 core 56 thread solution and it's a good time to revisit because with threader / 3 in the picture now we have didn't she leave like a week ago dude you lock me in the supply room yeah I ran out of snacks I had to eat thermal paste yeah that exact I might as well Bryan came here to sabotage us which is why I lost my voice the other day so after I caught whatever he brought down from Maryland we decided to finish this review and this is the cooler that's where crying to be using for most of this so the 31 75 X as we said in our review is almost impossibly hard to cool with anything anything close to reasonable this is the closest to reasonable you can because it's only a three hundred sixty millimeter CLC which is fine for an h EDT cpu except the part where we had to strap night egg fans to it which run at something like 70 DBA at 20 inches or so so it's it's damn near deafening really and anxiety-inducing if you have to sit in the room and listen to it but that's what's required to get an overclock to actually hold so we break some rules here we're for typically these high on CPUs anything that's mainstream desktop we stop at 280 CLC's anything that's h EDT we stop out at 360 this is like it was extreme serious when it came out and a normal 360 doesn't even get it close to what it's supposed to be able to do so it's it's kind of a balance between how do you do a reasonably fair review with constraints but also represent the product and at the end of the day the 3175 ax loses in a lot of tests anyway so we figured we'd give the best chance we could strap the most ridiculous cooler we could to it without going open-loop or chilled water and see how it does against a more reasonably cooled 39 70 X or 39 60 X we sort of mentioned this in our 10 900 X review where these comparisons are made more difficult by availability the 31 75 X was barely present to begin with but now much after its launch thinking launched on January of 2019 it's on Amazon for around $3500 it's just a bit higher than it should be really and there's a consumer c6 21 motherboard which is the chipset for these we often called it X 599 or X 499 whatever but it's really c6 21 and that board if you can find one would sell for about $1000 so you have $4,500 CPU plus board which is insane the 39.6 DX is about 1,400 to be fair the new thread Ripper stuff is basically non-existent also can't really find it in stock it'll get there but it'll take another month or so to equalize the stock levels either way though 1,400 bucks for the CPU motherboard you can get under a thousand if you want 3970 X is like 2 grand for the CPU so no matter what you're you could almost build 2 4 all thredUP or three workstations for the cost of one of these intel 3175 bags workstations because Intel's pricing hasn't changed on these there's also an issue just availability in general some of the motherboards for c6 21 only 50 of them were made when the processor came out so a good luck getting a board EVGA is the latest to the party they just put out their SR 3 I think it's called which is a great board but it's unfortunate that EVGA is reliant upon another partner for it to actually be relevant but either way there's not a lot of volume and that's one of the problems anyway let's get into our benchmarks will start with production go into games and then talk a bit more about if this thing's worth it and when it might be our production benchmarks will start with Adobe Premiere rendering which is the test that's the most relevant to us as a company our original test results back before the new AMD launches had us wanting to buy a 3175 ax for use in a rendering machine as we can't use our test CPU since they have to be reserved for benchmarking we never did buy one given the pricing and availability issues but that turned out to be a good thing these charts will use different tests than were used in our original review from January so we can't compare them directly but we have all new data anyway as in our original testing the 3175 ax clocked some of the fastest render times of any cpu we've tested straight out of the box it managed to render our 1080p benchmark video in 2.3 minutes tying it with the overclocked 39 70 X and just seconds behind me 1098 Exe overclocked at its impressive 4.9 gigahertz overclocking the 31 75 X tied it up for the fastest render time on the chart so far bumping it's a 2.2 minute although this gain is only four point three percent render time reduction from stock and these stock performance had it roughly tied with the stock 31 75 X at two point four minutes render time required the 39 60 X doc CPU ran at 2.5 minutes also reasonably close and allowed the Intel 3175 axial lead of only 4% from stock to stock but the 39 60 X as a much less upfront cost a hell of a lot less and it's more while the motherboards rather used are more easily found cheaper still the 3950 acts finished in 2.8 minutes when stock allowing the 3175 acts of 14% time reduction that's not bad for a $750 part matched up against a bunch of multi-thousand dollar parts or at least $1400 in the case of the cheapest of these for the more intensive 4k 60 render this stock 31 75 X was already faster than anything else we'd tested at five point seven minutes and it only got faster still when overclocked with a final render time of 5.1 minutes the render time reduction after an all core OC to four point one gigahertz was ten and a half percent which is massive when compared to the previous chart but still not great when compared to these 600 watts plus power consumption the most relevant comparisons for us are 4k rendering with a stock 31 75 X versus the 3970 acts and 3960 acts when all of them are stock and the 30 125 X was about 5 to 7 percent faster than either of these stock to stock if the 3175 acts didn't cost so much and if the boards weren't so hard to find and it's so expensive it might be worth it to buy one for rendering rather than using the 3960 ax but given the cost and the availability it's it's just really incredibly hard to justify the 31 75 X if if it can be justified at all overclocked to the 39 70 X runs at five point nine minutes for the render allowing the overclocked 31 75 X a 14% render time reduction overclocking has always been where the 31 75 X has shot it's an overclockable Xeon that's the whole point of it and that remains true here but cooling is almost impossibly hard and the accompany and heat dumped into the room is similarly challenging either way the 3970 acts and the 3960 accent to some extent even lower performing 3950 acts are all much easier to justify for this workload but if you need the best of the best and you're not willing to compromise you can still do the 3175 acts it's just that we're not sure how long it will remain a chart-topper and the overclocking cost in cooling noise and thermals is obscene so it's that's a really small use case blenders next our test for open source 3d animation and tile based rendering uses blender blender is among the most popular studio applications in the world and it's grown considerably in the last year with the support from Epic Games blender scales with core and thread count more than any other test we published since each tile spawns for one threat the GN monkeyhead render is first using a mix of visual effects that produce a very load on the CPU we also have a GN logo ray tracing render that we'll talk about next between these two render files we're able to somewhat isolate frequency benefits and see where some CPUs change rank with the monkeyhead render the 3175 x stock cpu completes in 7.6 minutes which has it between the 18 for 10 9 8 exe at 4.9 gigahertz and the 3960 x stock cpu the 39 60 X is a 24 core CPU which runs at a thread deficit to the 31 75 X but manages a render time requirement reduction of 9% overclocking the 31 75 X allows it to leap ahead to 6.1 minute a mass of 20% time reduction from the stock the 39 70 X stock CPU at 32 cores manages 5.6 minutes though for a completion time that is 8 percent faster than the overclocked 3175 X if we were to talk power and we will later the 39 70 X is significantly more efficient at a couple hundred Watts versus the up where its it's somewhat comical of 600 to 700 watts the GN logo render is next the logo render is also primarily responsible for the 4.1 gigahertz OC limit on our production benchmarks as trying to render that file with a sufficient voltage to maintain 4.5 gigahertz was quickly pushing a CPU beyond 110 C even with the massive ek CLC and alarmingly fast and physically dangerous 70 DBA at 20-inch night egg fans that we use for these tests the 39 70 X didn't exist when the 31 75 acts lost but it does now and there are cheaper ways to speed up CP renders than a $3,000 e on and a literal hurricane in your computer case the 31 75 X stock CPU finished in nine point three minutes compared to eight point nine on the last gen 32 core thread Riverpark the 39 60 X completed the benchmarks in 8.1 minutes illustrating the gains of this Xen generation and allowing a render time reduction of 13% versus the 3175 ACT overclocking the 4.1 gigahertz all core on the 31 75 acts definitely helped but the overclocked 3970 acts still beat it with a 22% time reduction and also the stock one beat it too so not really everything we need Photoshop is next this one is in some ways akin to gaming workloads and that it doesn't make great use of high core counts that's doubly bad news for the 31 75 X since we had to dial back the overclock from our gaming clocks for all of these production tests the overall stock 31 75 X CPU was at 1021 points in the performance range of AMD is much cheaper 3700 X and 3,800 x r7 CPUs this is not an application that requires a workstation CPU as illustrated by the 9900 Kay holding first place on the charts the overclocked 5.2 gigahertz 9900 K leads the chart with an overall score 12 percent higher than the stock 31 75 acts and overclocked you know 31 75 acts barely raised its performance the thread Ripper 39 70 X scored 1088 points here just a little better than the Xeon but a respectable difference given the lightly threaded game benchmark results that we'll cover in a moment either way though you shouldn't really be buying either of these CPUs if Photoshop is the only thing you do or the primary thing you do you should be looking at something more like in mind a 900 K more frequency advantaged 7-zip is next for benchmarks looking at compression and decompression measured in millions of instructions per second the Intel Xeon w31 75 X that's a new record in compression with an impressive score of 166 thousand MIPS the previous leader was the overclocked 3970 ax at one hundred and forty nine thousand mips but the stock 3175 ax beat that by eleven point two percent and when it was overclocked - it widened that gap to almost 21% this particular task doesn't seem to care too much about frequency as is evidenced by the small jump from the 10 980 x e at 116,000 mips for stock to 124 thousand maps for the overclocked result so we think this comes down to maybe an instruction set that aims he doesn't have or some architectural difference as for decompression and these stalls a massive lead here with a top score of three hundred and seventy seven thousand mips for the overclocks 3970 x as opposed to two hundred fifty three thousand mips for the overclocks 3175 ax the gap is an insane lead of forty nine percent for the 39 70 X or 51 percent one stock the 39 60 X for reference manages a lead at two hundred fifty four thousand MIPS of 8.5% while being $1400 instead of three grand or so this is a good reminder that among production workloads there are some highly specific tasks with some highly specific performance differences between AMD Intel and their individual CPUs we'll be bringing back a compilation test and other such workloads and future CPU benchmarks to v-ray is another render benchmark but much smaller than the blender test that we do core count on the 3970 x gives it a lead here again at twenty seconds to render at stock settings versus 24 seconds on the 31 75 X and eighteen point seven seconds versus 20 seconds overclocked versus overclocked stock turbo for the 31 75 X is 3 point 8 gigahertz but even bumping enough to just 4.1 gigahertz across 28 cores which is hard to maintain mind you can't mean to make up for the 3970 X's core account advantage in some workloads like this one the 39 60 X is roughly tied with the 31 75 acts when both are stock and a 3950 acts for reference runs notably slower than all of these at 36 seconds render time although still really good comparatively moving on to games now we can start looking at how things perform on the other side of what the CPU is doing our tests shadow of the tomb Raider's first up a DX 12 game that we found to tolerate tight core counts fairly well even though it's not the main faction performance for these CPUs the W 3175 axe came out of the gate very strong with a stock average of 165 fps and 0.1% low is averaging almost 100 FPS there's no reason to expect a Xeon to excel at gaming but it did have good frame time pacing and overall performance coming fairly close to the performance of the stock 9700 K or 9900 K there was jazz 23.3% lead for the stock 9900 K in comparison the 3970 axe averaged at just 143 FPS stock and overclocked while the W 3175 axe boasted a few FPS higher than stock to a 169 FPS average went at 4.5 gigahertz these numbers don't top the chart they're pretty close for silicon that wasn't really designed with this in mind but obviously we'd still recommend something else for gaming focus builds as this really isn't meant for gaming neither as thread Ripper the question is only can they still do it reasonably well without encountering some kind of weird issue like sometimes you have scheduling behavioral issues in the OS we're having high core accounts can actually ruin a gaming experience so we're just looking for that and we're not seeing that here from thread Ripper or from the 31 75 X hitman 2 is our next of the 2d x12 titles after shadow of the Tomb Raider and it's similarly friendly towards high core counts at 1080p the stock W 31 75 X held 1 30 FPS average with the stock and 9900 K a increase in its advantage to 4.5% the 3970 X average 123 FPS and again showed barely any benefit at all from an all core overclock since the stock limited core boost on rising 3000 CPUs is almost always higher than a practically achievable all core overclocked overclocking the 3175 ax had much better results with a 16.7% uplift over stock to 152 FPS average the 4.5 gigahertz overclock is much more difficult to maintain without an extreme cooling solution though and wouldn't be feasible with that ridiculous open-loop cooling with potentially loud fans hitman two scales performs reasonably at 1440p although GPU limitations begin to appear at the top of the chart the W 31 75 X loses almost all of the overclocking performance gains with a 129 FPS OC average versus 125 FPS average stock the 3970 X's Performance meanwhile is almost unchanged from 1080p with a 121 FPS average which makes sense when considering that the CPUs bottle that came the GPU so of course it wouldn't change the overclocked 1098 exe and 10900 X are the only ones that rise head and shoulders above the rest of the scores in this test with most mid to high end CPUs averaging in the 110 to 130 FPS rate again though you really shouldn't be buying any of these chips from playing games as a primary use case it's more of a secondary consideration between workstation tasks civilization 6 turn time testing is up now which looks at how long it takes a processor to simulate an AI players turn rather than looking at FPS this is the first title where the stock 39 some of the X has an advantage over the 31 75 acts with a 5.1 percent reduction an average turn time from 30 3.1 seconds to 30 1.4 seconds as usual overclocked in the 39 70 X had barely any effect wildly 3175 ax-cut times significantly down to twenty nine point six seconds our experience with this title is that pretty much any cpu with more than four cores scales based on frequency and that continues to be true here although frequencies can't be compared obviously between AMD and intel they can be compared to intro architecture the fastest to average turn time so far here are with the 4.9 gigahertz overclocked to 1090 dxe5 gigahertz 10 900 X 5.1 99 okay and so on the 31 35 X keeps up pretty well at 4.5 here Hertz but the difficulty of all who are over clocks only increases with the number of cores Assassin's Creed is next starting at 1080p at 1080 P the 31 35 acts ran Assassin's Creed at 126 FPS average but fell behind to mainstream desktop CPUs like the 3900 X at 134 fps stock or the 9900 K at 140 fps stock the 39 70 X also did about 6.6 percent better than the Intel 31 75 X here at stock settings averaging around 130 for FPS regardless oversee while the 31 75 acts at leapfrogged it with an OC up to 139 FPS at 4.5 diggers this is measurable but it's not meaningful or perceptible there's no difference in how the game feels between these two results none of our results for this test I've gotten much more than 140 FPS average so that puts it up against the same performance limit test the 9700 K and 900k stock and overclocked Assassin's Creed have 1440p doesn't change much for the overclocks although more rank is lost in the stock results as load shifts around to demand more in latency bound scenarios the 31 35 X stock result now runs at 108 FPS average around the 3800 acts and 2700 x OC results the 39 70 X and 3960 acts sit toward the middle near the 3900 acts nothing is unplayable bad we just lose some framerate the 3175 axe does relatively poorly here overall despite still being playable just obviously not something we'd prefer to buy for only this f1 at 1080p is our next game f1 always scores the highest average frame rates of all of our tests far beyond anything required for playing this game especially but it still has really good scaling represented between the CPUs and for that it's useful the 31 75 X stock averaged at 299 FPS with some extremely poor 47 FPS 0.1% lows a reflection of some scheduling issues on the Intel 28 core CPU that end up showing up in the frame time consistency of playback the 39 70 X average to 263 fps but with moderately better 82 FPS 0.1% lows overclocking the 31 75 X raised its average by eight point eight percent the 325 fps suddenly one of the best results we've had for this game beating the overclocked 9900 k + KS and falling just behind the overclocked to 10 9 8 Exe we think this has something to do with the mash overclock as moving to 30x improves latency and we know f1 can have some memory dependencies 1440p for f1 20 18 positions the 3175 acts at 240 FPS average 1 overclocked about tied with an i5 9600 case stock cpu and at about 236 average stock near the 1098 exe stock or I 5 8400 CPU this isn't really the right workload for the part clearly the 39 70 X is also not a stellar performer down in the lower portion of the chart it's overclocked in her performance to as the 3970 acts with an all core OC will lose top-end single core frequencies GTA 5 is an old standby but still one of our best titles for keeping things CPU limited all the way to the top of the stack the W 31 75 X averaged 1 10 FPS stock the 39 and 70 X is also not a stellar performer down in the lower portion of the chart it's overclocked her performance to as the 3970 acts with an all core OC Woolies top and single core frequencies overclocking again had a definite impact on the Xeon raising its 132 FPS average and bumping up against the top of the chart once again the 900 KS clocked to 5 point 2 gigahertz is right above it at 135 FPS we never see CPUs with core countless high scoring this well in games and it's still impressive even after a year to see a Xeon with 56 threads capable of scoring like overclocked desktop parts and an old and lightly threaded gaming benchmark most of the performance is definitely coming from the frequency though the stack for GTA 5 is the same at 1440p so that performance wasn't a fluke then we can move on right away at worst total war Warhammer and bug out when running on high core count CPUs but for the 3175 ax had just turned in a relatively lackluster performance of 97 FPS without any stuttering or bad 0 under 7 lows the 39 70 X did a little better at 104 FPS average but if falls prey to the same problems the stock 8 core 16th red 9900 K average to 179 FPS here clearly the software has an issue but it's a real-world problem that users may have to deal with overclocking the 31 75 X helped a little and raised its average 5.4 percent to 102 FPS but that doesn't compare to the leap seen and some other benchmarks finally for power numbers will just show blender to get an idea for performance this is where the W 31 75 X starts to look kind of bad if it didn't already the 39 70 X finished its GM logo render and 31% less time while requiring 24 percent less power there's a time reduction for rendering and a power consumption reduction if you're running a lot of boxes for some sort of localized render farm you'd save a lot in power with a 39 70 X instead especially once you start considering external cooling requirements like AC BTUs or something the 31 75 X at the higher power consumption when forced with extreme cooling like open-loop pushes north of 600 watts which is starting to get ridiculous especially considering the efficiency of the alternative chips working into the conclusion compatible motherboards for threader for 3000 CPUs are cheaper and more varied even though there are currently only two CPUs that fit the socket STR X 40 boards the 39 60 X and 3970 axe versus the many Zeon's that technically fit LGA 3647 there are just 3 motherboards purpose built specifically for the overclockable W 31 75 X each competes for a fraction of a fraction of an audience EVGA s r3 again is the newest but we've got a bad feeling that it might be the second that's our board in a row that gets let down by a dearth of overclockable Zeon's the W 31 75 X was sold in small numbers more as a headline grabber than anything and it worked it was actually a really good CPU when it came out we wanted it for production machines if it weren't so expensive we would have by now but it's good that we didn't because it's lost a lot of that hold to the new threader for three parts and the pricing hasn't really changed so we noted in our original review that it was unclear if ever when these CPUs and motherboards would be available outside of the the small volumes are outside of pre-built systems which is where they were kind of targeted initially those doubts were justified because a year later there's a decent chance that there's actually more open-loop Hardware available for these things than the actual product itself ek is probably sitting on a mountain of these coolers that they can't get rid of the motherboard vendors we know one of them at least has about 300 that they're sitting on right now of their board because they committed to a bigger order later and now they're stuck with them so as for how many of these CPUs sold an intact noted a quote low four-digit number for the 31 75 X and that sounds about right for overclocking we it's it's fun but it's a purely enthusiast thing and now the 3970 X is winning and some stuff like x buy anyway so it doesn't really matter and even though you can do 4.5 gigahertz on this with this cooler even it doesn't hold the 19 except for games so it doesn't really matter a whole lot and of course you never need a 28 core CP for gaming anyway because you end up worst in a lot of cases and almost all if not all cases then a 9900 K so this isn't our 31 75 X review we already wrote that this is a revisit and we still can't help caution you to just not by the CPU if you have a really specific use case maybe decompression then I guess you're a better judge than we are at that point so you can figure it out but on average our our choice is to skip the 31 75 X now we liked it a lot originally it wasn't something we could recommend necessarily just because of the price but there were instances like Adobe Premiere where it made a lot of sense and those are mostly caught away so it's objectively a good CPU but it is not a competitive CPU like the 10 900 and the 10 910 980 XE they're objectively good they're just not competitive and that means you shouldn't really be buying them so that's three visit of the 3175 axe thread Ripper really makes it look kind of bad in a lot of instances except for maybe one or two and it's not even really our choice for extreme overclocking anymore either which is not something we expected because Intel's held that realm forever so that's it thanks for watching subscribe for more go to store documents access net to grab our disappointment build t-shirt which has the 10 9 8 exe referenced on it and you should also check out the disappointment PC build if you haven't seen that video put a lot of work into it or go to patreon.com/scishow cameras access for behind-the-scenes videos thanks for watching we'll see you all next time\n"