1. The mesh interconnect looks like a big loser for the smaller parts. It's a big jump up in complexity (there's an academic paper floating around which describes the guts of an early-stage version) and seems to be a power and performance drain. I can't imagine they got the clock speeds they wanted out of it. Sure, it's probably necessary for the high-core-count SKUs, but the ring bus probably would have done a lot better for the smaller ones.
2. There's almost nothing in here for high-end workstations (which typically have launched with the server parts). Sure, AMD has Threadripper coming soon, but this looks like Intel's full lineup... so where are the parts? We've bought plenty of Xeon E5-1650s and 1660s around here, and it doesn't look like there's anything here to replace them. That's unexpected. The "Gold 5122" (ugh what a silly name) is comparable, but at $1221 is priced just about double what an E5-1650v4 runs.
Workstations are a bit of an interesting case because their loads look a lot more like a "gaming desktop" than a server: a few cores loaded most of the time with occasional bursts of high-thread-count loads. That typically favors big caches, fewer cores, and aggressive clock boosting. If you're only running max thread count every now and then, you can afford a huge frequency hit when you do. But since these are business systems we try to avoid anything that doesn't say "Xeon" on it (or "Opteron", in years past) as reliability is paramount. To see nothing here from Intel in this launch is discouraging, to say the least. I have an upgrade budget and it looks like it'll be heading nVidia's way at this point.