SPECviewperf v10 doesn't seem to take any advantage of the extra pair of cores, as the 980X Extreme Edition performed pretty much on par with the other Core i7 processors in both Maya and 3dsMax tests
.
The new CINEBENCH R11.5 benchmark on the other hand is able to make use of all six cores and as a result the 980X provides our best CPU score yet with 8.88pts. This is a 54% performance increase over the Core i7 975 EE. OpenGL performance remains much the same on both chips as the Core i7 980X EE and Core i7 975 EE delivered 34fps
.
WinRAR is another application that doesn't appear to support more than four cores. The Intel Core i7 980X was only slightly faster than the Core i7 975 EE when multi-threading. Single thread performance was also a bit faster with the Core i7 980X, which was a nice surprise considering we expected it to be a little slower than the Core i7 975 EE
.
In Microsoft Excel 2007 the Core i7 980X showed a significant performance advantage over the 975 EE. Although both processors operate at the same frequency, the Core i7 980XE was capable of completing tasks up to 35% faster. It was also up to 37% faster than the Core i7 960, 40% faster than the 950 and as much as 48% faster than the 920
.
As found previously when running the in-built WinRAR performance test, this program can't seem to handle more than four cores and as a result the Core i7 980X Extreme Edition performs very much like the Core i7 975 EE processor
.
Photoshop CS4 also shows no real advantage for the six-core processor. In both the HardwareHeaven and Retouchartists tests Intel's Core i7 980X Extreme Edition and 975 EE saw similar performance.
The core i7 980X Extreme really shows its strength in the HandBreak test as it was 22% faster than the Core i7 975 EE. This is an impressive result and good news for those that do heavy video editing type of work. Compared to the rest of the Core i7 lineup the 980X was 29% faster than the 960, 34% faster than the 950, and 54% faster than the 920
.
The x264 HD Benchmark also shows the Intel Core i7 980X Extreme Edition offering a considerable performance gain over the Core i7 975 EE. The six-core processor was 13% faster than the latter in this benchmark with 90.3fps, while beating the Core i7 960, 950 and 920 by 18%, 24% and 39% margins, respectively
.
Last but not least TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress was used for an avi to mpg conversion test, where the Intel Core i7 980X proved to be 12% quicker than the Core i7 975 EE -- taking just 6:44 minutes in total versus 7.29 with the latter. The Intel Core i7 980X Extreme was 14% faster than the Core i7 960, 21% faster than the 950 and 30% faster than the Core i7 920, beating this last one by almost three minutes.
I was surprised to see any performance gains at all when comparing the Intel Core i7 980X Extreme to the Core i7 975 EE processor here. However, the larger L3 cache does appear to provide a small performance advantage in UT 3. The Core i7 Extreme was also a full 33fps faster than the Core i7 950 at 1024x768 and 36fps compared to the Core i7 920
.
A slight performance advantage over the Core i7 975 EE is also seen when running Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts, just enough for two or three extra frames per second at both resolutions tested. The Core i7 980X Extreme Edition was also about 13fps faster than the Core i7 950 and 30fps faster than the Core i7 920 at 1024x768, but not so much so when compared to either processor at 1920x1200
.
In Far Cry 2 the Core i7 980X was just 4fps faster than the Core i7 975 EE at 1024x768, and as much as 18fps faster than the Core i7 920 processor at this same resolution. Compared to the Core i7 950 it was around 10fps faster. Again all three were pretty close at 1920x1200, however, which means at this resolution the GPU is the bottleneck.
The Intel Core i7 980X consumed 280 watts when under load, matching the slightly lower clocked Core i7 960. The 975 EE on the other hand consumed 11 watts more under load and 19 watts more at idle. In all the Core i7 980X Extreme turned out to be simply the most efficient Core i7 processor we have tested to date when measuring idle consumption levels.
https://i39.tinypic.com/2qu4474.jpg
Overclocking Performance
Without resorting to anything more extreme than air-cooling, we were able to overclock the Core i7 980X Extreme by 30% to very remarkable 4.32GHz. This was achieved by increasing the voltage to 1.345v, the base clock to 160MHz, and the multiplier to x27. Cooling the beast was the Prolimatech Mega Shadow, while the motherboard of choice was our year and a half old Asus P6T Deluxe
.
Overclocking the Intel Core i7 980X processor to 4.32GHz allowed for a 14% performance increase when compared to the default 3.33GHz configuration. This took the completion time of the MonteCarlo spreadsheet test from 8.56 to just 7.34 seconds. The chip was 44% faster than the Core i7 975 EE, 48% faster than the Core i7 950, 55% faster than the Core i7 920 and a whopping 72% faster than AMD's flagship Phenom II X4 965
.
Far Cry 2 also produced steady gains when overclocking from 3.33GHz to 4.32GHz, as the 1024x768 resolution performance was increased by 10%. Although the Intel Core i7 980X Extreme was also faster than every other processor tested at 1920x1200, here the difference was much less noticeable
.
TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress saw an impressive 17% performance increase when overclocking the Intel Core i7 980X Extreme processor to 4.32GHz, improving the conversion time from 6:44 to just 5:34 minutes. This is about 42% faster than it took the Core i7 920 to complete the same task, 34% faster than the Core i7 950 and 27% faster than the 975 EE.
https://i39.tinypic.com/2qu4474.jpg
انتهى
اعتذر لعدم الترجمه بسبب عدم وجود ثروه لغويه كفايه واى حاجه انا تحت امر التعديل
https://i44.tinypic.com/2drdkiu.jpg
https://i40.tinypic.com/f9do9c.jpg
مصدر الفواصل الخاصه بالمنتدى
هنا
