When overclocked and when running modern optimized games it does perform well, but we need to keep in mind the following:
- it has obvious weak spots with a number of other games even against much lower clocked CPUs from the Skylake army
- when overclocked we need to compare against overclocked Skylake, in which case it won't even have clock parity anymore
I cannot stress this enough: my intervention in firs page was accurately pointed towards the claim that the mesh interconnect was not weaker than the ring bus in games
. All one needs to do to disprove that is to find a meaningful category of games where the mesh fails to deliver. Everything else is just further discussion on the topic. (which may actually be very interesting as long as we keep it somewhat related to thread topic)
When SKL-X first appeared in the review radar, people on this forum speculated that the mesh was at it's first iteration, and that further optimization based on clock/cache increase will help alleviate problems with consumer workloads (latency goes down, cache misses go down). Unfortunately the 10nm drought followed and we have yet to see the next generation of Intel server CPUs that will power the next HEDT generation as well.
There is a good argument to be made here: as more games adapt to many-core CPUs, relative performance on high throughput chips will increase despite their architectural "weakness". We sacrifice latency for core count, there has to be a performance threshold. The way that SKL-X and even Zen1-2 chips perform in games today may not accurately reflect future game performance, in the sense that they are likely to age better than we expect them to.