Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unbox today we are gonna have a bit of benchmark fun I've managed to get my hands on a processor that until recently I didn't even realize I hadn't benchmark before and that is the core i7 and 980 X processor in fact I haven't actually benchmarked any of the 32 nanometer golf town processors before again not sure why that is I've bench my plenty of the Bloomfield 45 nanometer parts I was a big fan of the core i7 920 and I still have a few of those floating around actually but I never checked out any of the golf town processors so why not do that now before we get to the benchmarks cuz I know plenty of you will be keen to check those out as always we'll just go for a quick trip down memory lane though it won't be my memory because I didn't test this process of previously so just a quick history lesson than I suppose at the Bloomfield and golf town processors share the same LGA 1366 socket but the newer 32 nanometer parts are a little bit special in the sense that they pack six cores in fact the core i7 980 X was Intel's first ever six core desktop CPU and if you imagine it being expensive well you'd be right that sucker came in at $1000 us back in early 2010 the six cores operate at a base frequency of 3.3 you get hurt some boost to 3.6 u Hertz depending on the workload although designed to work with ddr3 1066 memory well as possible to ramp with higher memory speeds and given that the LGA 1366 socket was part of the Intel high-end desktop platform at a time triple channel memory support was offered in favor of the more standard dual channel memory operation so in short the core i7 980 X was a based the best desktop CPU money could buy the only issue being as mentioned earlier you needed a lot of money but what I want to know is how well does it stack up AES later to find out I'm gonna compare it to a whole heap of modern processors including the dinky little $100 u.s. Rison 320 200 G now I don't expect the 2200 G to be out of beat the six core 12 thread core i7 processor running at No than three point three gigahertz after all the 20 20 G is a fork or four thread CPU that runs at a base frequency of just 3.5 gigahertz has a little 4 mega byte level 3 cache and packs a maximum TDP of just 65 watts oh yeah and did I mention the night e^x is a 130 watt CPU still I'm interested to see how 2010 s flagship desktop CPU compares to 2018 s most affordable AMD Rison CPU also thrown into the mix are the 1st and 2nd generation rising 5 m rise in 7 CPUs along with a few KB Lake and coffee Lake CPUs as well the core i7 980 X has been benchmarked in its stock out of the box trim as well as an overclock configuration at 4.4 gigahertz for the memory I have 6 2 gigabyte sticks of ddr3 1600 memory and that's the best stuff I have available for this test so let's see how Intel's first ever six core desktop CPU stacks up in 2018 first up we have the size software memory bandwidth benchmark and here we can clearly see the advantage of high speed ddr4 memory the Rison 320 200 G has almost 50% more memory bandwidth at its disposal when compared to the triple channel ddr3 1600 configuration of the core i7 980 x with just 23 gigabytes per second of memory bandwidth the 980 X will be severely limited in memory intensive workloads moving on to Cinebench r15 which isn't particularly memory sensitive here we see these six core 12 thread 9 ATX does do reasonably well that said the single core performance is rather weak and shockingly even at 4.4 gigahertz is well down on what the 2200 g offers in fact the single thread performance of the 980 X was 8% slower than that of the 22 energy and 17% slower once the apu is overclocked still the 2200 GS 4 threads can't compete with the old 12 threaded CPU at least in the multi-threaded workload and it's up to 37% slower once both CPUs are overclocked that said when compared to a modern 6 core 12 thread reisen processes such as the 2600 X the 980 X is 30% slower actually 43% when comparing these stock numbers next up we have the v-ray benchmark and here we see the 980 X looks much slower than what you might expect particularly given what we just saw in testing with Cinebench the result however is accurate and the reason why the 980 X is so slow here is down to it's complete lack of AVX instructions a VX was introduced a year later with the Sandy Bridge architecture so the 980 X is going to lag behind severely and workloads that take advantage of AVX instructions and here with v-ray we do have a perfect example of this as the 980 X is only able to match the 2,200 G a cpu with only a third of the threads offered by the core i7 processor still once overclocked the 980 X is able to edge out the 22 energy that we're talking about a 7% reduction in render time for what will likely be double the power draw and we will look at power consumption towards the end of the video for now though let's move on to video editing performance as we take a look with PC mark 10 here the Rison 3 apu is able to beat the core i7 980 x both stock and overclocked stock the AMD CPU is 7% faster know that margin is reduced once both CPUs are overclocked the plucky little quad core was still 3% faster the PC mark 10 gaming physics test does take advantage of core heavy processes and it doesn't use an instruction set that's absent in the older Core i7 model as a result the 980 X is able to match the core i5 8500 out of the box and once overclocked actually beats the 8480 600 k and even the 7700 K that said it's still slower than the Rison 5 1600 and much slower than the new horizon 5 2600 models next up we have the 7-zip file extraction test and here the core i7 980 X does do very well especially when compared to more modern six core 12 thread processes like the Rison 5 1600 as it was just 11% slower that said once overclocked it was able to match the stock rather than 5 2600 so not a bad result but of course the rise in CPUs can also be overclocked moving on we have the corona performance and again very respectable results here the fourth row to Verizon 322 energy for example is completely overwhelmed by the older 6 core core i7 processor that said blender is another application that employs AVX instructions and like what we saw with v-ray the core i7 9 ATX really struggles due to its lack of AVX support as it's reduced to quad-core light performance as it just matched the horizon 322 energy overclocking did help but even so it was well down on where you might expect a 12 thread cpu running at well over 4 gigahertz to be Hambrick also runs a BX code and again we find the 980 X is only able to deliver quad-core that performance making it significantly slower than a modern 6 chord 12 thread CPU now for some gaming benchmarks and we see despite having three times the threads a notable clock speed advantage the 980 X isn't exactly world's faster than the rise in 320 200 G sure it was 25% faster when overclocked and that is certainly a noteworthy margin but honestly I expected a much more serious advantage in a core heavy game that said we do see the 980 X doing very well in battlefield 1 outpacing the 22 energy by a convincing 36 percent margin and that is once both CPUs are overclocked in fact once overclocked to the 980 X isn't that much slower than the risin 5 1600 orbea stock risin 5 1600 but still not a bad result however most games aren't as core heavy as battlefield 1 and ashes of the singularity and we certainly see a good example of that here when testing with far cry 5 here the 2020 G was actually 8% faster than the 980 X been comparing both CPUs stock performance overclocking does put the 980 X back ahead but it was still slower than the stock risin 5 1600 for example last up we have vermintide 2 and this title does scale quite well on core heavy CPUs and as a result the 980 X was 25% faster than the 2200 G when comparing overclocked results that said it was still 18% slower than a very GPU limited horizon 5 2600 okay time for some total system power consumption figures and please note these numbers also include a gtx 1080 TI here we see the rise in 322 energy system drawing up to 315 watts from the wall while the stock 980 X increased consumption by 55% hitting 489 watts and again remember that's entire system consumption which makes the over 50% increase even more shocking then once overclocked the 980 X system was sucking down 64 percent more power than the overclocked 2200 G now these are the truly scary numbers full cpu load with very light GPU usage now the stock 980 X system is drawing 93% more power than the 22 energy and 133 percent more once overclocked getting back to the stock numbers the 980 X also consumed 30% more than the 2600 X so unsurprisingly the 8 year-old CPU isn't very efficient by today's standards well there you have it the core i7 and 980 X compared to a number of modern CPUs in 2018 has to be said if it wasn't for the lack of AVX support the 980 X would have looked much more impressive in our application benchmarks still when it came to gaming the results weren't half bad especially when we look at those 4.4 gigahertz results of course power consumption was a bit atrocious it has to be said though we are looking at a 6 chord 12 thread CPU from 2010 using the 32 nanometer process ignoring the AVX workloads the 980 X out of the box so that's before we overclock it it was 37% faster than your Aizen 322 energy in Cinebench r15 s multi-threaded test however it does pack 50% more cores and then of course it does have hyper threading which means it has three times as many threads so a 37% increase in multi-threaded score isn't particularly impressive and that's because we see these single thread performance was down by 26% so that being the case the core i7 and 980 X doesn't stack up nearly as well to a modern six core 12 thread processor and even the first-generation Verizon 5 1600 had its way with intel's first-ever 6 core desktop cpu the r5 1600 was 19% faster and Cinebench r15 s multi-threaded tests and 25% faster in games such as ashes of the singularity again this test was really just a bit of fun and served no real purpose it's certainly not intended to be buying advice the 980 X made little sense in 2010 and it certainly makes no sense in 2018 especially given the current asking price which seems to be about $200 u.s. that said there is a certain breed of PC users that will be quick to point out that you can get a Xeon for much less and well that is true the Z on X 56 75 for example can be regularly had for around $80 us less than half that of the 980 X these are essentially the same six cord twelve thread CPUs they even work on the same X 58 motherboards and can be overclocked to similar frequencies and some of the better chips will even do 4.5 gigahertz the problem I have with these CPUs isn't necessarily the CPUs themselves as we've seen despite some pretty horrendous power figures their overall performance isn't bad assuming you're not running software that takes advantage your AVX in which case it is bad besides that though the big problem are the motherboards just getting one can be hard enough but getting one for a reasonable price is near on impossible assuming you don't want to spend every waking hour seeking out a bargain though even then there aren't really few to be had you're looking at having to pony up around a hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars u.s. for an x58 motherboard and the better examples the board's you're actually going to want to use are much closer to the one hundred and fifty dollar US mark realistically you're looking at around two hundred and thirty dollars u.s. for a Xeon X 56 75 and x58 motherboard combo and then you'll also need some ddr3 memory but that stuff's much cheaper than ddr4 so that's probably the biggest win for this combo 12 gigabytes looks to be about $70 us about the same price as a gigabytes of ddr4 so if we were to include 12 gigabytes of ddr3 memory that would push the xeon bill out to about $300 u.s. alternatively you could buy a risin 526 hundred four hundred and seventy dollars u.s. a be 350 board for at $60 u.s. and then eight gigabytes of ddr4 memory for around $70 u.s. and that gives us a grand total of $300 u.s. that being the case i just find the risin 526 hundred to make so much more sense stock you can just pull the thing out of the box stick it on the board start the system up and it will just smoke and overclocked x 56 75 so personally i just no longer get the love affair some people seem to have with these old xeon cpus pre risin they were great but unless you can get a CPU motherboard and memory and combo for well under $200 u.s. it's simply not worth it at this point there's also a number of sick purity vulnerabilities on these platforms that likely aren't going to get patched so you'll just have to live with those and if they do get patched there will be some kind of performance decline there so all that is worth keeping in mind having said all that if you would like me to compare the Xeon X 50 675 to say the risin 5 2600 nahi per games then I can certainly make that happen let me know in the comment section below if you want to see that happen I think I said that at the start let's just move on actually let's just end the video I think we're done I think I've said everything that needs to be said so if you liked the video you know what to do subscribe for more videos just like this one and if you want to support the channel more directly check out our patreon account you can gain access to a discord chattin talk about old xeon processors or new rising processes or whatever you like there we will answer any questions and we also do a monthly live stream out to blast we did that about a week ago so you just miss that but you could go back and watch it I suppose and then you can jump in the next live stream next month and and yeah feel like I'm this outro is going but longer than it needs to so I think this is the point where I say thank you for watching I'm your host Steve and I will see you again next time