Skip to navigation

Intel Core i7-980X review

in Processors

The i7-980X is the most powerful chip yet to grace an LGA1366 slot

Verdict

32nm technology hits the high end for massive performance – but at a massive price too

Review Date: 11 Mar 2010

Reviewed By: Darien Graham-Smith

Price when reviewed: £689 (£810 inc VAT)

Overall Rating
4 stars out of 6

Features & Design
6 stars out of 6

Value for Money
1 stars out of 6

Performance
6 stars out of 6

Intel’s Core i3 and i5 desktop chips have already demonstrated that the new 32nm process has clear benefits, and now the Core i7-980X (codenamed Gulftown) brings that die-shrink to the top-end LGA 1366 platform. The result is a chip so powerful that, reportedly, Intel originally intended to call it Core i9.

With a stock clock speed of 3.33GHz the i7-980X matches the 45nm Core i7-975, hitherto the fastest model in the family, and where previous i7s have been quad-core parts, the new chip incorporates six physical cores. Thanks to Hyper-Threading, that means a single CPU can service twelve processes at once. The chip's L3 cache has grown proportionately too, to 12MB.

What’s more, Gulftown is far less conservative than existing LGA 1366 processors when it comes to Turbo Boost, aggressively clocking individual cores up to 3.6GHz at the drop of a hat, then slashing them down to 1.6GHz when idle – keeping total idle power draw down to a bearable 108W on our test system.

That’s a trick learnt from Intel’s 32nm Westmere platform, and Westmere’s new hardware AES encryption and decryption instructions are here too, although the LGA 1366 platform doesn’t currently support any sort of integrated graphics.

Need for speed

The real focus, though, is on performance, and in our desktop benchmarks the i7-980X achieved a very creditable 2.23, nosing ahead of the i7-975 which scored 2.19. Unsurprisingly, the new CPU fared particularly well in the multitasking test, with a stellar score of 2.75, but even this doesn’t reflect the full power of Gulftown. With so many cores on hand, this result was achieved using less than 30% of available processing capacity.

Once again, Intel has broken its own record and produced the fastest CPU we’ve seen.

A better indicator of the true potential of the i7-980X is our 3ds Max test, since this application is specifically optimised for multi-core processing. Here, the 103 seconds taken to produce our scene represents a score of 3.04 against our reference PC. With all twelve virtual cores being taxed at once, power consumption for the whole system hit 217W, versus a peak of 173W in our multi-applications test.

Since the i7-980X is a multiplier-unlocked Extreme Edition, performance can be pushed yet higher by increasing the chip’s range of available operating frequencies in the BIOS, and the 32nm design gives plenty of headroom to do so. With a stock cooler, we were able to raise the maximum Turbo Boost speed to 4.14GHz, yielding a magnificent overall benchmark score of 2.59 (including a rather impressive 3.15 for multitasking). Once again, Intel has broken its own record and produced the fastest CPU we’ve seen.

The cost

Such prestige inevitably comes at a price, and in the US Intel anticipates selling these chips in bulk for $999 each. Early UK pricing has come in at £689 plus VAT. For most of us that’s impossible to justify when, for everday use, a 3.4GHz AMD Phenom II delivers five sixths of the performance for around one sixth of the price.

Indeed, for everyday use a six-core processor makes no sense at any price: despite the onward march of hardware, most modern desktop applications simply can’t make use of this many threads. That, along with the price, destines Gulftown for a specialist workstation role, rather than a general-purpose desktop.

So, the i7-980X isn’t a realistic purchase for most of us, but it is still a great demonstration of processor potential, and a salutary hint at the sort of power that can be expected to trickle down into the mainstream over the next few years.

Author: Darien Graham-Smith

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

That's great but what's it for?

A CPU like this is well beyond the needs of the typical PC user or even PC gamer. However, if you use a PC for sustained CPU intensive activity such as 3D Rendering or Video work it can cut up to 1/3 off the render/encode time. For gaming it only comes into its own on systems loaded to the gills with SLi and CrossfireX graphics and massive screen resolutions. It is worth bearing in mind that the i7 930 and 960 will be replaced with 6-core versions based on this CPU around October.

By CyberpowersystemUK on 11 Mar 2010

I agree

It is a bit of a waste to use a general purpose processor for a specialist task like gaming / 3d rendering.

Graphics card manufacturers are releasing cards with 480 cores, specifically designed for them kind of calculations.

For office / surfing the internet it's a bit over the top at the minute... until Microsoft release their next OS.

By john_coller on 11 Mar 2010

Rendering and extra CPU cores

The problem with the above suggestion that it cuts 1/3 off the time to render / encode is that this is now by far better dealt with by Nvidia CUDA or ATI Stream. Both technologies with modern GPU's cut the time to a mere fraction required using purely (quad-core) CPU rendering / encoding and at a fraction of the cost of the 6 core i7-980X. So as you questioned above, what is the purpose of a 6-core CPU, It can't even be justified for servers where again many of the database intensive processes can also be better achieved with CUDA / Stream?

By skarlock on 11 Mar 2010

12 cores - it's going to make windows task manager (CPU usage) look a bit crowded.

By pauld1024 on 11 Mar 2010

Only 6 cores Paul, it's 12 processes due to Hyper Threading. But yea starting to get crowded with 6.

By skarlock on 11 Mar 2010

Crunching

For rendering, using CUDA or ATI Stream, there is still a component of the CPU used, so it will expedite rendering in the same way it hastens GPU crunching. Of course only the most enthusiastic cruncher will buy one. Gamers, designers and video professionals will make up the rest of the users.

By skgiven on 12 Mar 2010

The more cores you have the more you can crunch. This is a much optimised CPU and will get through many tasks. It will also complement CUDA crunching as it will speed up any CPU dependent part of the task (work unit).

By skgiven on 12 Mar 2010

Virtual

Should be good for VM applications too, where the VM's are each running fairly intensive operations. Completely agree that this is massive overkill for most PC users, but there's plenty of uses for raw processing muscle outside of the leisure industry.

By tomsteemson on 11 Jan 2011

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.

(optional)

Latest Processors Reviews
Intel Sandy Bridge E review

Intel Sandy Bridge E

Category: Processors
Rating: 5 out of 6
Price: £840
AMD FX "Bulldozer" review

AMD FX "Bulldozer"

Rating: 5 out of 6
Price: £840
AMD Fusion for desktops review

AMD Fusion for desktops

Rating: 5 out of 6
Price: £840
AMD Fusion review

AMD Fusion

Rating: 5 out of 6
Price: £840
Intel Sandy Bridge review

Intel Sandy Bridge

Category: Processors
Rating: 6 out of 6
Price: £170
Compare reviews: Processors

advertisement

Most Commented Reviews
More From PC Pro
Latest News Stories Subscribe to our RSS Feeds
Latest Blog Posts Subscribe to our RSS Feeds
Latest Features
Latest Real World Computing

advertisement

Sponsored Links
 
 
SEARCH
SIGN UP

Your email:

Your password:

remember me

advertisement


Hitwise Top 10 Website 2010
 
 

PCPro-Computing in the Real World Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.