I agree. An even bigger problem is that most of the benchmark suite is completely irrelevant to what these CPU's are going to be used for. These are meant for servers. They should keep that in mind when selecting what benchmarks and which operating system to use.
The Threadripper CPUs are meant for workstations / high-end desktops (HEDT), not servers. For servers, you'd want the EPYC line. The benchmark selection is somewhat reasonable, though yes, you'd want some Linux tests in there.
While some platforms are certainly designed with long term always-on use in mind, "meant to" isn't quite right.
We mostly operate sTR4s as HEDTs, but we also have X399 server boards with IPMI and 10GbE in a board configuration designed to be installed racked. To us, there's only a minor functional difference in role.
You just answered the question. It would be interesting to see TR and EPYC head-to-head in server workloads, to confirm or deny the theory that EPYC is better for them.
What benchmarks do you think would be relevant? This seems like a part that's designed for AV production, 3D and SFX work. It could be used in a server-like role, but, for 500 more, the EPYC counterpart is a much better deal.
Servers can often use more than 256 GB RAM and 4 memory channels, like the EPYC line these are based on. I'd like to see it benchmarked as a workstation for local builds (both Windows and Linux) and for accessing and processing in parallel 100 GB+ data in RAM (for quicker prototyping than GPUs, or verification). Those would be my main uses.
