The Core i7 980X Review: Intel's First 6-Core Desktop CPU
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 11, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Windows 7 Application Performance
We're testing out a few new additions to our Bench database, so what we've got here are some updated application tests run under Windows 7. The CPUs compared are going to be different since we don't have as much historical data, but we'll be building it up over the coming months.
x264 HD Encoding Performance
It's what you've all been asking for - our x264 encoding test with an updated version of x264. In this case we're using TechARP's x264-HD 3.03 bench and x264 version 1342.
7-zip Benchmark & Performance
We use WinRAR for our compression test under Vista, but more and more users are switching to 7-zip. The performance is more CPU dependent so we're going to look at it. First up is the built in 7-zip benchmark:
Here we're taking the same 300MB set of images from our WinRAR test and are compressing them using 7-zip. We divide file size by completion time to get compression speed in KB/s:
The actual 7-zip archive creation process is limited to two threads, and here the 980X actually falls behind the 975 presumably because of its higher latency L3 cache. The built in 7-zip benchmark can run across all 12 threads and thus performs much better on the 980X, serving more as a bandwidth benchmark than anything else.
Sonar 8 Multi-track Audio Export
We've had some requests for digital audio workstation benchmarks so we're adding a multi-track audio export from Sonar 8. Performance is expressed in KB/s:
Again, we see a small gain here thanks to the larger cache but the extra cores aren't doing much.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
- Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
how are you getting your productivity numbers/percentages ???Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
Also note that I limited my voltage to a ~15% increase. I believe with more voltage it's possible to go higher, but you really start driving power consumption up at that point.Take care,
Anand
zartok - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
I saw on tweakers.net they were able to run it 3.45GHz on 1V and on 4.26GHz on 1.38V (or 1.33V can't tell that well due to the image size), without even trying hard. So are sure that it's the CPU that's limiting the OC and not something else eg the motherboard?Bolas - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
How does this cpu compare to the 6-core 32nm Xeon server chips that are launching around the same time? Any cost information on those yet? I mention this because I'm seriously considering EVGA's new dual socket W555 motherboard, which requires the dual QPI cpu's.goinginstyle - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
Is Intel offering 18 months no interest no payment plans for this? I really want one but I also want to eat and live in something besides a box for the next six months. Good article and nice to know the X58 boards we already have should work with nothing more than a BIOS upgrade.JonnyDough - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
This processor isn't for you then.It's for people who have nothing better to blow money on AND have money.
DrMrLordX - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
This is mostly a paper launch since few people will pay $1k for a CPU. As has been said so many times in the CPU/OC forums, keep your eyes out for the 32nm Xeon quads that will be appearing for LGA1366. They won't be 920 d0 cheap but they will be cheaper than the 980 and probably OC pretty well.erwos - Thursday, March 11, 2010 - link
If it's in the channel, it's not a paper launch. Period, end of story. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean others can't.DrMrLordX - Friday, March 12, 2010 - link
It's not that it's unaffordable . . . it's just that I'm not that crazy. Close, but not quite.JumpingJack - Friday, March 12, 2010 - link
Maybe a career change that pays more :) ... j/k.