Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition - Most Powerful CPU EVER

Key Specs

Socket Type: Intel LGA1366 Number of Cores: Six Operating Frequency: 3.3GHz Front-Side Bus: Intel QuickPath Interconnect Cache Memory: 12MB

 

Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Review

Reviewed by: Matt Safford Review Date: March 2010

Intel’s PC-processor competitor, AMD, has done well with its budget and mainstream CPUs, with products like the Athlon II X4 635 eking out a performance edge over Intel’s comparably priced Core i3-530. But at the high end of the CPU world, where absolute performance matters much more than consumer-friendly pricing, Intel is still the undisputed king. Its current Core i7 CPUs top anything AMD currently has on offer. That continues with the latest Core i7 chip, the Core i7-980X Extreme Edition (code-named "Gulftown" during its development), which packs six cores and can handle up to 12 simultaneous processing threads. Intel has taken the next logical step in chiparchitecture by increasing the number of cores, and in doing so, the company has delivered another “world’s fastest CPU." Indeed, in programs that are fully threaded (that is, written to take full advantage of as many cores and threads as are available), the Core i7-980X is substantially faster than the previous CPU champ, the Core i7-975 Extreme Edition. But given the still-limited selection of software that is fully optimized to take advantage of multiple cores (most of them professional content-creation apps, media transcoders, and a few games), not to mention the stratospheric $1,000 price, this CPU is all kinds of overkill for the average user. A detailed, labeled schematic of the Core i7-980X die, with its six cores. The massive 12MB of L3 cache (which is shared across all cores) takes up much of the space. Still, if you are a professional content creator who edits loads of HD video, large image files, or 3D models, upgrading to the Core i7-980X may be a smart choice, even if you already have a Core i7-975. (Note: If you're dropping this CPU into an existing Socket 1366 motherboard, you'll have to update your BIOS before installing the CPU; otherwise, the system may not boot.) In our video-editing and -encoding tests, the Core i7-980X was 25 percent to 40 percent faster than the Core i7-975, depending on the program. That kind of performance boost could shave hours off rendering times when working with large files. But with software that isn’t multi-core-aware, like iTunes, the Core i7-980X’s performance is dead-even with its predecessor's, due to the fact that the two CPUs share the same 3.33GHz clock speed.   The similarities between the Core i7-980X and the Core i7-975 don’t end with clock speed. Both chips use the same CPU socket (LGA 1366, reserved for Intel's high-end Core i7 chips) and motherboard chipset (the Intel X58). And both CPUs are equipped with the same base features. Hyper-Threading allows fully threaded software to simultaneously perform two processing threads per core, for a grand total of 12 threads on the Core i7-980X, versus "just" eight threads with the Core i7-975. (The latter has four physical cores, to the Core i7-980X’s six.) Additionally, both CPUs feature Intel’sTurbo Boost technology, which helps boost performance in software that isn’t written for multiple cores by switching off unused cores and, within the chip's thermal parameters, automatically cranking up the CPU clock speed. Considering the similarities and differences between these two CPUs, the Core i7-980X performed about as expected in testing. It pulled well ahead of the Core i7-975 in programs that take full advantage of extra cores, but it stayed neck-and-neck with the Core i7-975 elsewhere, since both CPUs share the same base clock speed. In all tests, AMD’s current flagship chip, the Phenom II X4 965, lagged far behind. (It should be noted, though, that at around $190 at the time we wrote this, that AMD Phenom CPU costs less than a fifth of the price of either of these Intel chips.) We started our workout with our Sony Vegas 8 test, which is designed specifically to tax all CPU cores. The Core i7-980X finished our standard MPEG-2 rendering trial in Vegas in just 1 minute and 40 seconds, while the Core i7-975 took 2:13 to tackle that task and AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 took 3:12. We then moved on to Cinebench 10, another test that taxes multiple cores. The Core i7-980X scored a stunning 26,981, while the Core i7-975 came in at 19,973, and AMD's Phenom II X4 965 managed just 10,454. That's sheer processing muscle if you're using the right apps. The results for the Core i7-980X were even more impressive in our next test, our Windows Media Encoder video-conversion trial, which also takes advantage of multiple cores. It took just 1 minute and 40 seconds to convert our standard test file, while the AMD chip took 2:53, and Intel's Core i7-975 took 3:01. Clearly, if editing or transcoding large files is something you do often, the Core i7-980X will save you some serious time. On the other hand, our iTunes 7 conversion test didn’t show such disparate results. This reveals the real-world limitations of these high-end processors when tackling everyday computing tasks using software that isn't multi-core-capable. The Core i7-980X converted our 11 test tracks in 2 minutes and 26 seconds; the Core i7-975 actually did so one second faster (well within the margin of error); and AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 came in 21 seconds behind, at 2:47. In every test other than iTunes, in which it essentially tied its identically clocked quad-core predecessor, the Core i7-980X set new records. And thanks to a 50 percent increase in processing cores, it pulled well ahead in those tests that take full advantage of all available processing power. This CPU is extremely fast, no doubt, but unless you’re a content-creation professional who taps toes and twiddles thumbs every day while waiting for projects to render, there’s no reason that anyone who owns an earlier Core i7 chip should feel strongly compelled to upgrade at current prices. Gamers will also see some benefit in titles that take advantage of multiple cores. (Where applicable, the extra processing threads often allow the game to handle more-complex artificial intelligence for non-player characters.) But again, while a handful of games can make use of these extra cores, and more are on the way, most games currently on the market won't see a significant benefit here if you're already running a fast quad-core CPU. Gamers looking for bragging rights will certainly get them by adding this CPU to their systems, but adding a second (or third) graphics card, if the PC can handle it, will likely result in a more noticeable benefit across more games. It’s also worth noting that, like the previous Core i7 Extreme Edition CPU (and AMD’s Black Edition CPUs), the Core i7-980X features an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking. To get a sense of the CPU's overclocking potential, check out our review of Falcon Northwest's latest Mach V desktop, outfitted with an overclocked Core i7-980X. With the help of liquid cooling, Falcon pushed the CPU to a bit above 4GHz, and in our tests, the PC was quite stable. In sum: The 980X is worth the asking price for creative professionals dealing in large files; for everyone else, it’s overkill, at least from a practical perspective. Still, there’s no denying the geek cred that comes with having a CPU that can handle 12 processes at once—just because.