No. We just add a current gen desktop at the top of the waterfall. Our fiduciary standards require I reanalyze Ryzen-Threadripper annually and Threadripper always loses due to lower price-performance. By how much depends mostly on whether the analysis date happens to fall in the window where Threadripper’s caught up to Ryzen’s arch gen.
No. We usually reconfigure hardware every few months. Nice to keep motherboard, processor, and system drive together but splitting them or changing up the system drive isn’t that big of a hassle with TPM keys and domain records. Expensive monolithic’s more a high uptime, large OEM service contract, or workstation-server config fragility approach, it seems to me. Desktop compatibility’s high enough self-insured, self-maintained use can be more flexible.
192’s been supported for 19 months, 256 for 10. We’ve been running 192 for over a year and will move to 64GB UDIMMs once they’re available. In the several 192 threads here there’s a lot of attention to 2DPC versus 1DPC clocks and just about no attention to 24 and 32 core X or 48 and 64 core WX Threadrippers having the same number of cores per channel as 12 and 16 core Ryzen. Socket power per core and core clocks are also often neglected.
I don’t know of WX benches useful here and X data is minimal. The CFD thread looks at Comsol’s memory bound behavior and finds essentially linear 7950X-7960X core scaling (+50%) with +18% from 7950X-7950X3D and +30% 7950X-9950X, which is an order of magnitude lower marginal return on Ryzen-Threadripper than Zen 4-5. Depth of overclock, timings, and OSes vary but it appears plausible 9950X3D might outperform 7960X.
They’re fine. What I’m running on a 9900X most weekends would take all week on a 5950X, though. For other workloads 9900X and 5950X is at least a tie. Depends mainly how SIMDy the hot paths are, how L3 resident the data is, and how linear the thread scaling is.