AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 vs Intel Core i7-980X Comparison

The Intel Core i7-980X and AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 occupy the same 41st percentile among all CPUs, yet the benchmark data shows a clear, consistent edge for the AMD part across every tested workload. In the six head-to-head comparisons, the Ryzen Embedded R2514 wins all six, with deltas ranging from -2.4% to -3.2% in favor of the AMD chip. The largest margin appears in the Cinebench R15 multicore test, where the R2514 scores 603 against the i7-980X’s 584, a 3.2% advantage. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the R2514’s 84 narrowly beats the i7-980X’s 82, a 2.4% difference. This pattern holds across newer versions of Cinebench: in R20 multicore, the R2514 posts 2513 versus 2434 (3.1% ahead), and in R23 multicore, it scores 5984 against 5797 (again 3.1% ahead). Single-core results are equally one-sided, with the R2514 leading by 3.1% in both R20 (354 vs 343) and R23 (844 vs 818). Notably, the Intel chip has no benchmark win in this matchup; the AMD processor’s advantage is uniform across all six tests, regardless of workload type or Cinebench version.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a straightforward narrative: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 outperforms the Intel Core i7-980X in every single benchmark recorded, though the margins are modest. The largest differential is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the R2514’s 603-point score surpasses the i7-980X’s 584 by 3.2%. This is the only test where the delta exceeds 3%; all other multicore results settle at exactly 3.1% in favor of AMD. For instance, Cinebench R20 multicore shows the R2514 at 2513 versus 2434, and Cinebench R23 multicore shows 5984 versus 5797 — both precisely 3.1% gaps. Single-core performance tells a similar story, but with one slight variance: Cinebench R15 single-core has the smallest difference at 2.4% (84 vs 82), while R20 and R23 single-core both show 3.1% advantages (354 vs 343 and 844 vs 818, respectively). These numbers indicate that the AMD chip’s superiority is not workload-specific; it scales evenly across both multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks. The absence of any Intel win — winsA is 0 while winsB is 6 — underscores the consistency of the AMD processor’s edge, even if each individual margin is small enough that real-world perceptibility might be limited.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 is the clear performance pick in this comparison. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with a maximum advantage of 3.2% in Cinebench R15 multicore and a minimum of 2.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The average benchmark score for the R2514 is 1730, which is slightly lower than the i7-980X’s 1746, but that aggregate figure masks the fact that the R2514 only has results for six Cinebench tests while the Intel part also includes Geekbench scores. Looking strictly at the shared tests, the AMD processor is ahead every time. Users prioritizing raw CPU performance in Cinebench-style rendering or encoding workloads should choose the R2514 based on these results. However, the Intel i7-980X is not without merit: its 6 cores and 12 threads outnumber the R2514’s 4 cores and 8 threads, yet the newer architecture and higher boost clock of the AMD part compensate for that deficit. The i7-980X does hold a slight edge in average benchmark score (1746 vs 1730), driven by its Geekbench multicore score of 3247, a figure the R2514 does not have a direct counterpart for. For buyers who need the absolute highest Cinebench scores, the R2514 is the answer; for those relying on Geekbench metrics, the i7-980X appears stronger, but that comparison is incomplete due to missing data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-980X uses the Westmere architecture, specifically the Gulftown codename, built on a 32 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, by contrast, uses the Zen+ architecture under the Picasso codename, fabricated on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 4,940 million transistors in a 210 mm² die. This means the AMD chip packs over four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller area, proof of the denser manufacturing node. Cache configurations differ substantially: the i7-980X offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a large 12 MB shared L3 cache. The R2514 counters with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite having one-third the L3 cache, the AMD processor still wins benchmarks, suggesting its architecture is more efficient at using available cache. The Intel part features an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD chip’s multiplier is locked. Integrated graphics are present only on the R2514, which includes Radeon Vega 8; the i7-980X has no integrated graphics. Memory support diverges as well: the i7-980X uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, while the R2514 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a specified memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part. PCIe generation differs, with the i7-980X offering Gen 2 and the R2514 providing Gen 3 with 16 CPU-only lanes. Production statuses contrast sharply: the i7-980X is end-of-life, released in March 2010, while the R2514 is active, released in September 2022.

Specification Differences

A side-by-side comparison of the specification sheets reveals where the two chips diverge. The Intel Core i7-980X has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has 4 cores and 8 threads — a 50% core advantage for Intel. Clock speeds favor AMD: the i7-980X runs at a 3.33 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, whereas the R2514 has a 2.10 GHz base but a higher 3.70 GHz boost. Thermal design power is dramatically different: the i7-980X is rated at 130 W, while the R2514 sips at just 15 W. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1366 for the i7-980X versus AMD Socket FP5 for the R2514. The process node is a major differentiator, with Intel at 32 nm and AMD at 12 nm. Transistor counts are 1,170 million for Intel versus 4,940 million for AMD, and die sizes are 239 mm² versus 210 mm². Cache structures differ per-core: Intel has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, while AMD has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core; shared L3 is 12 MB for Intel versus 4 MB for AMD. Memory support is DDR3 for Intel and DDR4 for AMD, with bus widths of triple-channel versus dual-channel; only AMD lists a memory bandwidth figure (42.7 GB/s). ECC memory is supported only by AMD, as is integrated graphics (Radeon Vega 8). PCIe generation is Gen 2 for Intel and Gen 3 for AMD. The multiplier is unlocked on Intel but locked on AMD. Release dates are 2010-03-15 for Intel and 2022-09-29 for AMD. Production status is end-of-life for Intel and active for AMD. No launch MSRP is available for either part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-980X has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD chip wins all six Cinebench head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i7-980X has a base clock of 3.33 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, giving it a higher maximum frequency.

Q: How much does the AMD chip win by in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 scores 5984 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core i7-980X scores 5797. This gives the AMD processor a 3.1% advantage in that test.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the Intel Core i7-980X and six wins for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 across all tested Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) and both single-core and multicore workloads.

Q: What memory types and channels do the two CPUs support?

A: The Intel Core i7-980X supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and has a specified memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Only the AMD chip supports ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has integrated graphics, featuring Radeon Vega 8. The Intel Core i7-980X has no integrated graphics and requires a separate graphics card.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results point to a clear winner in the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, but the use-case split goes beyond raw scores. The AMD chip wins all six Cinebench tests, making it the superior choice for workloads that rely on those specific rendering and multi-threading benchmarks. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz gives it an edge in single-threaded tasks, as evidenced by its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. The AMD processor also offers features that expand its applicability: integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics mean no discrete GPU is needed for basic display output, ECC memory support suits reliability-focused systems, and a 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained or passively cooled embedded designs. The Intel Core i7-980X, despite losing every head-to-head test, still has strengths. Its 6 cores and 12 threads provide more parallel execution resources than the AMD’s 4 cores and 8 threads, which could be advantageous in certain multi-threaded applications not covered by Cinebench. The Intel part also has a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache, potentially benefiting workloads with high cache locality. Its Geekbench multicore score of 3247 is higher than any single Cinebench result for either chip, though no direct AMD Geekbench score exists for comparison. The i7-980X’s unlocked multiplier appeals to overclocking enthusiasts, though its 130 W TDP and end-of-life status are drawbacks. The AMD R2514 is the pick for modern, efficient, and compact systems where benchmark performance per watt matters; the Intel i7-980X is a legacy part for those needing six cores and twelve threads in a desktop platform with overclocking headroom, accepting lower Cinebench performance and higher power draw.