Intel Core i7-980X: when four cores aren't enough

Need more cores? Intel's latest Extreme Edition processor packs six, shrunk down to 32 nanometers.

Intel has announced its latest Extreme Edition processor, the Core i7-980X. Like the recently released 2010 Clarkdale lineup, the i7-980X (previously code-named Gulftown) brings Intel's turbo boost and hyperthreading technologies to the 32nm process. The i7-980X is also Intel's first processor with six physical cores, offering increased system performance in applications optimized to take advantage of them.

The Core i7-980X will essentially replace Intel's current performance king, the 45nm Core i7-975 Extreme Edition. While the Core i7-975 will still be available, the new six-core processor will be offered at the same $999 price point--that's six cores for the price of four! But how much of a difference can two extra cores make?

At a glance, the Core i7-975 and the Core i7-980X are identical. Both sport a base clock speed of 3.33GHz, report a TDP rated at 130W, and support three channels of DDR3-1066 memory. But two additional cores means that the processor has 12 threads for an application to work with, versus four cores and 8 threads in the i7-975.

You'll also find a 12MB L3 cache shared across all six of those cores, as opposed to the 8MB cache in the i7-975. A processor's cache functions as a memory storage area, where frequently accessed data remains readily accessible. A larger L3 cache shared across all six cores allows data to be exchanged among them far more readily, improving performance in multithreaded applications. With a large cache and four extra virtual threads, you'd expect to find the greatest appreciable performance difference between the two chips in applications designed to take advantage of multiple cores--and our test results reflected as much.

For our tests, Intel provided a pair of DX58SO motherboards. Serial upgraders should be pleased to note that the Core i7-980X is compatible with existing X58 chipsets. Just drop it into your existing motherboard, and you're (almost) ready to go; we had to perform a required, but painless, BIOS update. Our second test bed was equipped with the aforementioned Core i7-975 Extreme Edition processor. Both test beds also carried 6GB of RAM, 1TB hard drives, ATI Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards, and optical drives for loading software. We ran all of our tests on Windows 7 Ultimate Edition (64-bit).

Intel is pitching the Core i7-980X as the the premier part for the enthusiast gaming crowd. In our tests, we did see some improvements over the Core i7-975, but they were marginal. In Unreal Tournament 3 (1920-by-1200 resolution, high settings), the Core i7-980X cranked out 159.9 frames per second as compared to the Core i7-975's 155.4 fps, a 2.8 percent improvement. In Dirt 2, the Core i7-980X offered 73.3 fps, against the Core i7-975's 71.7 fps--a 2.2 percent increase.

Those results are hardly surprising. Despite the proliferation of multicore processors, many modern video games have yet to take full advantage of multithreading. Sega's recently released Napoleon: Total War and Ubisoft's upcoming R.U.S.E. have both touted their Core i7-980X optimization, claiming greater detail and realism thanks to simply having more physical cores to work with.

Other games boasting optimization for more than four processor threads include Ubisoft's Far Cry 2, Capcom's Resident Evil 5, and Activision's Ghostbusters. That being said, if you recently sprang for a Core i7-975 and are strictly a gamer, there's no need to curse your poor timing -- at least, not until more developers fully commit to the multithreaded bandwagon.

If, on the other hand, you spend much of your time working with multithreaded applications -- including Blender, Adobe Photoshop, and Sony Vegas Pro -- coughing up US$1000 for your workstation's processor might not necessarily be a bad idea.

The most tangible results will be apparent in applications designed to sprawl across as many cores as possible. Take Maxon's Cinema 4D, 3D animation software used by professionals in numerous industries. In Maxon's Cinebench CPU benchmark--which can utilize up to 64 processor threads--the six-core i7-980X saw a 40 percent improvement in performance over the quad-core i7-975.

When considering a processor with a 130W TDP, there's a good chance that saving a few bucks on your energy bill isn't your chief concern. Nevertheless, the Core i7-980X does offer perceptible gains over the i7-975. With all power-saving features disabled, power utilization at peak levels for the i7-980X was 210 watts, versus the i7-975's 231 watts. That's a 10 percent difference in what seems like the wrong direction, indicative of the potential power savings of the smaller 32nm process.

There's a lot to like here, but that's to be expected--this is a $1000 piece of silicon, after all. As far as gamers are concerned, the i7-980X may not blow the i7-975 out of the water currently, but in this case the performance bottleneck lies in the lack of available multithreaded offerings--a trend that's already begun to change. If this chip is in your price bracket, it's well worth the cost of entry provided that you haven't plunked down for an Extreme Edition processor too recently. And as multicore processors and multicore-optimized applications become increasingly common, you'll be able to put all six of those cores to good use -- for work and play.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Nate Ralph

PC World (US online)

2 Comments

name

1

just 1 question.
whats the point of this?
is there 1 single application out there that requires this CPU?

i use to be a hardcore PC gamer a few years back and last feb i decided its time to go back to the roots since i had some spare cash.
4K later boy, o boy do i regret that. biggest wast of money ever!
i went literally crazy thinking i would need the best of the best to play the games on maximum settings like you use to a few years ago.
but nope, well in fact i could of spend half that, i could of spend 2K instead of 4K and got the exact same experience.

so again i ask what is the point of this?
if a I7 920 is enough to run the most demanding stuff out there, why do i need this $1000 CPU for?

this industries going crazy, there producing things we do not need, and can not use.
its like creating a car that can fly us to the moon, kinda pointless no?
its like building a car that can go 500kMs per hour, whats the point?
where can you do 500KMs per hour?

why buy a $1000 CPU when you can buy a $500 to do the exact same job?
its like buying a crane to life a packet of chips.

some guy

2

future proofing? pc gaming got old in my opinion. consoles have better games and graphics are good and you save tons of money by not having to buy super pcs every 2 years..

Comments are now closed.

Latest News Articles

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?