Huh? We're comparing high-end CPUs here. Most of the folks buying a threadripper are using it for professional purposes. Why wouldn't we include other high-end CPUs used for professional purposes? The 3175X isn't even the most expensive chip listed. The inclusion of a Ryzen 3950x is a nice comparison for those deciding whether the extra ~$1250 for the 3970x or ~$650 for the 3960x makes sense (not including platform costs). Just as the inclusion of the Intel 3175X helps to decide whether another ~$1000 makes sense to go with a somewhat comparable Intel. In the professional world these price differences aren't nearly as large as they seem. Time=money.
Still upset about abandoning TR4 but I know, I know. That's how it goes... <sigh> oh well
Yeah, nothing is really unfair about including the 3175, but I was surprised that power consumption got such little play in the article. I mean, its great that the Threadrippers aren't that much more expensive and bring 24 or 32 cores to the table, while the 10980XE only brings 18, but come on, the 280W TDP vs 165W TDP, and 285W draw vs 182W draw in the power consumption tests is hardly given a nod. Those AMD processors are using 57% more power? How often are they getting 57% better performance? Now, I get it, sometimes you want as much performance as you can get in a single box and power costs are kind of 'meh', but then, at what point do you jump to DP set ups? Its great seeing AMD back in the game and causing price cuts on Intel's chips, but we gotta look at the complete picture. For "enterprise" use, usually power consumption matters.
I also have to echo the criticism that it was a little weird to see so many gaming bench markers at this level. If you're spending ~1000-1500 just for the CPU, I gotta think you have the funds to build gaming-specific computer and let your "enterprise" machine keep chugging away at billable work.... Anyway, that's my thoughts.