Skip to main content

The Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition Processor Review

Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage

In Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs: The Sandy Bridge Review, I noticed that AMD’s Phenom II X6 wasn’t seeing better performance because most components in the benchmark suite didn’t seem to be taking advantage of more than four cores.

The same issue afflicts Intel’s new Core i7-990X Extreme Edition, giving us our first real indication that this $1000 processor is simply out of its element in the mainstream desktop space. The result is that we have to watch the sub-$400 Core i7-2600K take a first-place finish, followed by the -990X and -980X.

You have to look hard for examples of the six-core Gulftown-based processors outmaneuvering the more efficient Sandy Bridge-based Core i7-2600K. And, in PCMark Vantage, only one exists: the Communications suite. According to Futuremark’s whitepaper, Communications is predominantly processor-intensive.

There are four components in Communications—all multitasked workloads. Three of the four involve either AES-based encryption or decryption as part of the task list (data compression, Web page rendering, Windows Defender, and audio transcoding are among the other components). That gives the Gulftown- and Sandy Bridge-based chips and advantage, since they’re the ones with AES-NI support.

However, the fact that Intel’s Core i7-2600K delivers greater AES hashing bandwidth, as you’ll see in our SiSoft Sandra 2011 tests, suggests the Sandy Bridge chip should be taking first-place here—unless of course this suite can tax more than four cores/eight threads.

  • 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