The Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition Processor Review

Features
By
published

We were impressed enough with Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture that we awarded the Core i5-2500K our coveted Recommended Buy award. Just north of $200, that’s a solid value. But it’s not Intel’s flagship. That honor goes to the new Core i7-990X Extreme.

Benchmark Results: F1 2010

This is what I was alluding to on the previous page. I simply could not believe that the Phenom II X6 1100T could be so handicapped in F1, especially after seeing slightly better results on Gigabyte’s 890FXA-UD5 in our Sandy Bridge launch. So, I asked Don Woligroski to run the same test on his Phenom II X6 1075T/790XT-UD4P combo, featured in an upcoming shoot-out of sub-$200 processors for gaming. His results confirmed what I was seeing. Mainly, F1 2010 seems to have a problem with AMD’s six-core CPUs. Disable two of the Thuban design’s cores, yielding four active cores, and the benchmark results shoot up. The irony, of course, is that F1 is an AMD-sponsored DirectX 11 title on the graphics side.

Intel’s CPUs flip-flop a bit as you increase resolution. By the time you hit 2560x1600, which is nearly all graphics-limited, our four tested Intel chips fall within two frames per second of each other.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
116 Comments Comment from the forums
  • kikireeki
    Chris, I think your first conclusion still valid.
    Reply
  • binoyski
    Darn, the contest should be open to all Tom's Hardware registered users even from a different country!
    Reply
  • Saljen
    My friend just built a new gaming rig with the 980x as the processor... He plays Age of Conan. I busted up laughing when he said he spent $1k on a processor that he'll only use to 1/10th of its potential. Told him he should have gotten an i5, now I'll send him this article as further proof.
    Reply
  • HansVonOhain
    This is just a ripoff by intel on those who are not knowledgeable enough that more expensive does not always mean better.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    kikireekiChris, I think your first conclusion still valid.
    Which one was that? :)
    Reply
  • adamboy64
    Well, some people just want the best when they buy a PC, regardless of cost efficiency, can't blame 'em. There'll always be that market.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    binoyskiDarn, the contest should be open to all Tom's Hardware registered users even from a different country!
    Really wish it could be binoyski. We have specific tax laws, unfortunately, that prevent it. Same reason the folks in RI can't enter :-/
    Reply
  • joytech22
    Wow AMD's CPU is just getting plain-ol decimated in this review.

    Still, it does hold it's ground even though the architecture is like 4 years old, using the same technology that was around back when the C2Q's we're the high-end (the same as the original phenoms on a die shrink).

    Because of this, I can almost guarantee AMD's success with their future CPU's, just like I predicted the 2600K would be faster in most cases than the 980X.

    That doesn't mean I'm saying that Bulldozer will outperform the i7's or upcoming 8-core Intel CPU's I'm just saying that there's going to be some serious decisions for upgraders this year.

    I mean look at Magny corus 12 core (2.2GHz) vs i7 980x, it's almost as fast and 1GHz slower (but 12 physical cores) and cost's the same.
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe
    joytech22Wow AMD's CPU is just getting plain-ol decimated in this review.i wouldnt say decimated, and its cheaper also. That benchmark of metro 2033 is interesting, particularly the better lowfps the AMD chip managed. But i agree they have flogged this horse as far as it will go and they need bulldozer ASAP to be competitive.
    Reply
  • haplo602
    HansVonOhainThis is just a ripoff by intel on those who are not knowledgeable enough that more expensive does not always mean better.
    I thought that's what Intel is doing with all of their CPUs :-)
    Reply