I'm not going to disagree outright, but you're going to pay quite a bit for such a combination of single-thread peak performance and high power efficiency. It's not clear why we should be regarding that as our "default" of sorts, given that practical workloads increasingly benefit from good multicore performance. Even gaming is now more reliant on GPU performance (which in principle ought to benefit from the high PCIe bandwidth of server parts) than CPU.
You have a processor with more than eight threads, at same bus bandwidth, what do you choose, dual channeled or four channeled processor.
That number of threads will hit a bottleneck accessing only through to channels of memory.
I don't understand why you brought up the topic of single-threading in your response to the user, given that processors reached a frequency limit of 4 GHz, and 5 GHz with overclocking, a decade ago. This is why they increased the number of threads, but if they reduce the number of memory channels for consumer/desktop...
What is the best single thread performance possible right now? With over locked fast ram.
I said "single-thread performance or power efficiency", not "single-thread performance and power efficiency". Though at the moment, the best single-thread performance does happen to go along with the best power efficiency. Old server CPUs offer neither.
> Even gaming is now more reliant on GPU performance (which in principle ought to benefit from the high PCIe bandwidth of server parts)
A gaming GPU doesn't need all of the bandwidth available from a single PCIe x16 slot. Mid-range GPUs and lower don't even have x16 connectivity, because it's not worth the die space to put down more than 8 lanes of PHYs for that level of performance. The extra PCIe connectivity on server platforms could only matter for workloads that can effectively use several GPUs. Gaming isn't that kind of workload; attempts to use two GPUs for gaming proved futile and unsustainable.