We Test a $1,000 CPU From 2022 vs. Ryzen 3

Today we're going to have a bit of benchmark fun as we exam out a processor we reviewed in 2022. Recently we got our easily again on a Cadre i7-980X processor. This is a 32nm "Gulftown" part, and while we tested the "Bloomfield" 45nm CPUs extensively -- and were big fans of the Cadre i7-920 -- nosotros never paid much attention to Gulftown after launch.

Although Bloomfield and Gulftown processors share the same LGA1366 socket, the 32nm parts are a bit special in the sense that they pack half dozen cores. In fact, the Core i7-980X was Intel's first always hexa-core desktop CPU and if you imagine it beingness expensive, well you'd be right. This sucker came in at $one,000 dorsum in early 2022.

The six cores operate at a base of operations frequency of 3.iii GHz and boosted to 3.6 GHz depending on the workload. Although designed to work with DDR3-1066 memory, it was possible to run at much higher speeds and given that the LGA1366 socket was part of Intel high-stop desktop platform at the time, triple-channel memory support was offered in favor of the more standard dual-channel retentiveness.

So, in short, the Cadre i7-980X was a beast, the best desktop CPU coin could buy. Only how does information technology stack upwardly viii years later? To observe out I'm going to compare information technology with a whole heap of modern processors, including the dinky little $100 Ryzen 3 2200G.

Note: This feature was originally published on 07/26/2018. We have made minor revisions and bumped it as role of our #ThrowbackThursday initiative.

Now, I don't expect the 2200G to beat a half dozen-cadre/12-thread Cadre i7 processor running at no less than iii.3 GHz. Afterwards all, the 2200G is a 4-core/4-thread CPU that runs at a base frequency of simply 3.5 GHz, has a little 4MB L3 enshroud and packs a maximum TDP of 65 watts. Oh yeah, did I mention the 980X is a 130 watt CPU?

Still, I'chiliad interested to see how 2022'south flagship desktop CPU compares to 2022's nigh affordable Ryzen. Also thrown into the mix are the 1st and second generation Ryzen five and Ryzen vii CPUs along with a few Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs.

The Cadre i7-980X has been benchmarked in its stock out of the box trim as well as an overclocked configuration at 4.4 GHz. For the retentiveness, I have 6 2GB sticks of DDR3-1600 retentiveness and that'due south the best stuff I have available for this test. So let'due south run across how Intel'southward showtime 6-core desktop CPU stacks up in 2022…

Benchmarks

First upward we have the SiSoftware memory bandwidth benchmark and hither you can clearly meet the advantage of loftier-speed DDR4 memory. The Ryzen 3 2200G has almost 50% more retentivity bandwidth at its disposal when compared to the triple-channel DDR3-1600 configuration of the Core i7-980X. With merely 23GB/south of memory bandwidth the 980X will exist severely limited in retention intensive workloads.

Cinebench R15 isn't specially retentivity sensitive and every bit a result the 6-core/12-thread 980X does reasonably well here. That said the single core performance is rather weak and shockingly even at 4.4 GHz is well downward on what the 2200G offers. In fact the unmarried thread performance of the 980X was 8% slower than the 2200G and 17% slower once the APU is overclocked. Still the 2200G's 4-threads can't compete with the old 12-thread CPU in multi-threaded workloads and is upwards to 37% slower once both CPUs are overclocked.

That said when compared to a modern 6-core/12-thread Ryzen processor such as the 2600X, the 980X is 30% slower, actually 43% slower when comparing the stock numbers.

Next up we accept the V-Ray criterion and here the 980X looks much slower than yous might expect, particularly given what nosotros but saw when testing with Cinebench. The result however are accurate and the reason why the 980X is then wearisome here is downward to it's complete lack of AVX instructions. AVX was introduced a year later with the Sandy Bridge architecture, so the 980X is going to lag behind severely in workloads that take advantage of AVX instructions.

V-Ray is a perfect example of this as the 980X is only able to match the 2200G, a CPU with a third of the threads offered past the Core i7 processor. Overclocked the 980X is able to edge out the 2200G simply we're talking a 7% reduction in render fourth dimension for what is likely double the ability depict and we'll look at power consumption presently.

For now let's move on to video editing performance with PCMark 10. Here the Ryzen iii APU is able to vanquish the Core i7-980X, both stock and overclocked. Stock the AMD CPU was seven% faster and although that margin is reduced once both CPUs are overclocked, the plucky little quad-core was still three% faster.

The PCMark 10 gaming physics examination does take reward of core heavy processors and it doesn't use an educational activity set that's absent on the older Cadre i7 model. As a upshot the 980X is able to match the Core i5-8400 out of the box and one time overclocked beats out the 8400, 8600K and 7700K, that said information technology'south withal slower than the Ryzen 5 1600 and much slower than the newer Ryzen five 2600 models.

Next upward we have the seven-null file extraction exam and here the Core i7-980X does very well and when compared to the more modern six-core/12-thread processors like the Ryzen 5 1600, it was just eleven% slower. That said overclocked it was able to lucifer a stock Ryzen v 2600, so not a bad result, of course the Ryzen CPUs tin also be overclocked, only notwithstanding not a bad result.

The Corona operation is also very respectable and here the 4-threaded Ryzen three 2200G is completely overwhelmed.

Blender is another application that employs AVX instructions and like what nosotros saw with V-Ray the Cadre i7-980X really suffers due to it's lack of AVX support. As a outcome it'due south reduced to quad-core similar operation as it matched the Ryzen 3 2200G. Overclocking did aid but even so it was well down on where you might await a 12-threaded CPU running at well over 4 GHz to be.

Handbrake as well runs AVX lawmaking and again we find that the 980X is only able to deliver quad-cadre like performance making information technology significantly slower than a modern 6-core/12-thread CPU.

Now for some gaming benchmarks and nosotros see despite having 3x the threads and a notable clock speed advantage the 980X isn't exactly worlds faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G. Sure it was 25% faster when overclocked and that is a noteworthy margin merely honestly nosotros expected more in a seriously core heavy game.

That said the 980X does off-white even better in Battlefield 1, out pacing the 2200G by a convincing 36% margin once both CPUs are overclocked. In fact overclocked the 980X isn't much slower than the Ryzen 5 1600, albeit a stock R5 1600, but still non a bad result.

However most games aren't equally core heavy equally Battleground one and Ashes of the Singularity and we see a good example of this when testing with Far Cry five. Here the 2200G was 8% faster than the 980X when comparison both CPUs stock performance. Overclocking does put the 980X dorsum ahead only it was all the same slower than a stock R5 1600.

Terminal up we have Vermintide 2 and this title does calibration quite well on core heavy CPUs and as a upshot the 980X was 25% faster than the 2200G when comparing overclocked results. It was also eighteen% slower than a GPU limited Ryzen v 2600.

Okay time for some total organisation power consumption figures and please annotation these numbers also include the GTX 1080 Ti. Hither we meet the Ryzen 3 2200G organization drawing up to 315 watts from the wall while the stock 980X increased consumption by 55% hit 489 watts and again remember that's entire system consumption which makes the over 50% increase fifty-fifty more shocking. Then once overclocked the 980X system was sucking downwards 64% more than power than the overclocked 2200G.

These are the scary numbers, full CPU load with light GPU usage. Now the stock 980X system is drawing 93% more power than the 2200G and 133% more than once overclocked. Getting back to the stock numbers the 980X too consumed 30% more power than the 2600X, so unsurprisingly the 8 yr old CPU isn't very efficient by today's standards.

Closing Remarks

Well there you have it, the Core i7-980X compared to a number of mod CPUs in 2022, that was a bit of fun. If information technology weren't for the lack of AVX support the 980X would accept looked much more than impressive in our application benchmarks. Only when it came to gaming, the results weren't bad, especially with that iv.four GHz overclock.

Of grade, power consumption is atrocious but that's to exist expected when looking at a half dozen-core CPU from 2022 using a 32nm process (!).

Ignoring the AVX workloads the 980X was 37% faster than the 2200G in Cinebench R15'south multithreaded test when comparing out of the box functioning. However it packs fifty% more than cores and with Hyper-Threading back up offers 3x as many threads. So a 37% increment for the multi-threaded score isn't that impressive and that's considering the single thread performance was down by 26%.

The Core i7-980X doesn't stack up nigh besides to a modern 6-core/12-thread processor, and even the first generation Ryzen 5 1600 had its way with Intel showtime ever 6-core desktop CPU. The R5 1600 was 19% faster in the Cinebench R15 multithreaded test and 25% faster in games such every bit Ashes of the Singularity.

Though this test was mostly about getting perspective and having some fun -- it's certainly non intended to be buying communication -- the 980X made piffling sense in 2022 and information technology certainly makes no sense in 2022, especially given the asking price seems to be around $200.

That said, there is a certain brood of PC users that will be quick to signal out you can go a Xeon equivalent for much less and that'southward true, the Xeon X5675 for example can exist regularly had for around $80, less than half that of the 980X. These are essentially the same 6-cadre/12-thread CPUs, they even work on the aforementioned X58 motherboards and can be overclocked to similar frequencies, some of the better chips volition even exercise 4.5 GHz.

The problem I have with these CPUs isn't necessarily the CPUs themselves, as we've seen the overall performance isn't bad despite some pretty horrendous power figures, assuming y'all're not running software that takes advantage of AVX. The large problem are the motherboards, just getting one can be hard enough just getting 1 for a reasonable toll is almost impossible.

Assuming y'all don't desire to spend every waking hour seeking out a bargain, though even then in that location are few to be had, you're looking at having to pony upward around $100 - $150 for an X58 motherboard and the better examples, the boards you'll actually desire to use are much closer to the $150 marking. Realistically you're looking at around $230 for a Xeon X5675 and X58 motherboard combo. You'll too need some DDR3 retentiveness, just that's much cheaper than DDR4 right at present, so that's probably the biggest win for this philharmonic, 12GB looks to be about $70, most the same price as 8GB of DDR4.

So with 12GB of DDR3, let'south say $300 for the Xeon build. Alternatively, yous can buy the Ryzen 5 2600 for $150, a B350 board for $70 and 8GB of DDR4 for effectually $70, a grand full of ~$300.

Stock, without having to do whatsoever overclocking, the Ryzen 5 2600 build smokes an overclocked X5675. Personally I no longer become the love thing some people have with these old Xeon CPUs, pre-Ryzen they were great only unless you can get the CPU, motherboard and memory combo for well under $200, it's simply not worth your money anymore.