Intel Core i7-980X 6-Core CPU Review (BmR)

Benchmark Reviews presents the Intel Core i7-980X processor, a six-core Westmere 32nm CPU. Codenamed Gulftown, this 3.33GHz Extreme Edition processor features an unlocked clock speed multiplier with twelve computing threads and a 12MB cache. Built for the Intel X58-Express enthusiast platform, Benchmark Reviews tests the BX80613I7980X retail part in gaming, computing, and overclocking performance.

[vhero]

Ssee the main problem with cpus is we are still help back by core speeds. There is not enough support for multicores as nobody wants to freeze out the single core market. This is potentially where the next generation of consoles could leap over PC gaming.

[Charmers]

Erm don't know where you are coming from with this ? Nearly all games support multicores and use them these days. I have a quadcore cpu and regularly monitor what is happening during gaming and you can easily see that games are now using 2 or more cores for processing.

So games are now multicore and there is a reason for that, the reason being single core pc's now only account for 18% :-

http://store.steampowered.c...

So no I don't think consoles will be able to take advantage of the lack of multicore support since there is tons of it now and it is just getting better and better.

[champ21]

consoles leaping pcs when it comes to games? lol wat?

On topic.. there isnt any need of this cpu since there isnt a game out there that will take advantage of 6 cores. heck even 4 cores are more then enough.

If intel, amd or nvidia want us buying more powerful hardware they better take up the matter with the software developers, as asides crysis even a g8800gtx along with a dual core cpu will max out any of todays game.

[crck]

Not sure what your talking about. Just about every game I've played in the last 2 years utilizes multiple cores. Plus no one is afraid to freeze out single core computers. In fact Intel doesn't even sell single core desktop processors anymore and AMD only has 1 single core desktop processor currently on the market(which is actually a dual core chip with 1 core disabled).

[hoops]

Leap over PC's for gaming? Pleaseeee stick to console gaming. As always you have no idea what you are talking about. Single core CPU's no longer exist...or at least are made by any manufacturer for desktop or laptops. You can still buy single core CPU's....from Ebay or other sites trying to get rid of them.
The only CPU's you can get are multcore CPU's. Please vhero stop...You just proved you have no knowledeg in this area. Stick to sub 720p gaming with little to no AA...Yes..that's a jab at ALL consoles including the PS3

[Letros]

I lol'd

[ProjectVulcan]

The problem for developers is scaling for cores, as four cores literally can be twice as fast as two cores and six cores three times as fast. In the past a new single core CPU was a little faster, you know, clock bumps and such nudged the performance along. Whereas dealing with multiple cores further divides the potential performance gap, which can instantly be doubled with the amount of cores on a chip. So developers have to set a baseline within reason, and that is usually two cores right now because that is the vast majority of the market. However that should not serve as an excuse to not have an engine that further scales up the CPU ladder to four cores and beyond- source actually scales to six cores and up.

As for the console nonsense, the consoles actually aided the uptake of multicore programming. If the game is made for console, then it has to be well threaded to get the best performance anyway. So most ports across use at least a dual core. A typical dual core X86 processor like a core 2 duo is much faster and better for games than 360's tiny triple core or PS3's CELL, possessing chunks of cache and well developed pipelines.

[sid4gamerfreak]

Wow u r seriously daft... Since all the other smart ppl commented to his ignorant post, i shall not add to it and waste my time talking sense to a retarded console fanboy...

Back on topic, I rly want this cpu for my next gaming pc....Alas, i cannot afford it yet...

[jjesso]

would nice have somthing like this but not really much use at the momment but nice to make your pc future proof if you got the money. Amd is not as good in performace but lot cheaper. It was good the way allowed all am2 mother boards to work with am3 processor with bios update with intel most of there cpu that come out and you need new motherboard.

[dredgewalker]

ill pass for now until it becomes mainstream and more affordable.

[steve30x]

A quad core i5 750 is good enough for me. Its much better than my Q6600 that I am using right now.

[ATi_Elite]

$999 way to expensive and actually doesn't have a pratical use as you can multitask a 4 core to death and it will barely break a sweat. As far as gaming it's all about the Gpu and soon to be Gpgpu. Cpu's will be for running spreadsheets and monitoring your firewall as the Gpu takes over the Pc.

Pc architecture as a whole needs to change so these high powered CPu's with 4 cores and virtual cores and friends and family cores could actually be used more efficiently.

The Cell and it's architecture is looking even better right now.

[hoops]

You actually mentioned the Cell as being better then these TRUE Quad core CPU's? Dude no longer post in the PC section as you know squat

[hoops]

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. The future for GPU's are to combine the CPU and GPU on one chip. And they have done this already for lower power chips seen in netbooks etc.
Something Intel is working on as well as Nvidia and ATI. It's called accelerated processor unit or APU. LIano...This is ATI's version. Intel and Nvidia have stuff in the pipe also. The real push is to combine both CPU+GPU on one chip that has multiple cores and is powerful enough for full HD software rendering.
What the hell is GPGPU you posted? Stop making things up as it makes you look stupid.

[moe84]

Definitely planning on building my next rig around this cpu. Although, not adding enough performance for the high end user makes me wonder..

[Faelan]

It's a sweet CPU, but I'd rather just get a regular quad core and overclock it to 4+GHz for a fraction of the prize, then spend the money on other good stuff like a SSD or two.

Even for something like Flight Simulator X which is so heavily CPU bound it's not even funny and has the support to use more cores than you can throw at it, I doubt it would make enough difference to justify the price tag.

If money was absolutely no issue on the other hand, yeah... then I'd get it.

[xg-ei8ht]

Multicore processors have been around for awhile now.

But the trouble is, the newer processors are not used enough.

on a quad core, most games may push, 95,95,20,30.

This will improve over time.

6 cores is nice and all, but doing benchmarks for games at high resolution is not testing the processor.

The way you test a processor is at low res, because all your trying to see is how well the processor does compared to others, at high rez your maxing out the graphics chip, therefore bottlenecking it.

That's why there's hardly a jump in fps through the games tests.

You can't push any harder then the GPU can. and a couple of frames variance can be from anything.

This has been proven many times, by various sites, including anandtech,guru3d etc.

[wibble]

Upgrading from quad core to six cores wouldn't really be noticeable. Perhaps a 15% increase in frame rates on some games (if you're lucky).

I'm gonna wait for 8 core CPUs to become available before upgrading.

[Modestmex]

Same here i'll be sticking with my Q6600 for a long time. Bought that thing like 2 years ago and is still kicking arse.