CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core i7-990X is unambiguously the faster processor in every single benchmark where the two are compared. Across six head-to-head tests spanning Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the 990X wins 6-0, with margins ranging from 3.6% to 3.8%. There is no workload category represented in the data where the Core i7-980 pulls ahead. The 990X achieves these wins through a combination of higher base and boost clocks (3.47 GHz vs 3.33 GHz base; 3.73 GHz vs 3.60 GHz boost) and an unlocked multiplier, which the 980 lacks.

For buyers choosing strictly between these two end-of-life Gulftown chips, the data points one direction: the Core i7-990X is the better performer in every measured test. The 980's only advantages are its later release date (June 2011 vs February 2011) and the fact that it is not an Extreme Edition part. However, neither of those translates into a benchmark win. If the price difference is irrelevant and raw performance is the sole criterion, the 990X is the clear pick. If the 980 is available at a significantly lower cost, the performance gap is modest, roughly 4%, but the 990X still holds the edge in every single-core and multi-core test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Core i7-990X leads the Core i7-980 by nearly identical margins across all six benchmark comparisons. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 990X scores 611 against the 980's 589, a 3.7% advantage. The single-core R15 result is 86 versus 83, a 3.6% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core gap widens slightly to 3.7% (2549 vs 2458), and the single-core delta reaches 3.8% (359 vs 346).

The Cinebench R23 results mirror the R20 pattern. In multi-core, the 990X posts 6071 against 5853, again a 3.7% margin. In single-core, the 990X scores 857 versus 826, a 3.8% lead. Notably, the 990X also has a Geekbench multi-core score of 2612 and a single-core score of 556, while the 980 has no Geekbench entries in the data pack, meaning the 990X has a broader benchmark footprint, but no direct comparison is possible there.

The consistency of the deltas is striking. Across every generation of the Cinebench test, the 990X maintains a 3.6-3.8% advantage in both single-core and multi-core workloads. This suggests the performance gap is primarily a function of clock speed rather than any architectural difference, since both chips share the same 6-core/12-thread configuration, 12 MB of shared L3 cache, and 32 nm Westmere design. The 990X's higher clocks, 3.47 GHz base and 3.73 GHz boost versus 3.33 GHz and 3.60 GHz, translate directly into a nearly uniform percentage lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-990X wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15, it scores 611 vs 589 (3.7% faster); in R20, 2549 vs 2458 (3.7% faster); in R23, 6071 vs 5853 (3.7% faster).

Q: Is the Core i7-980 better in single-core performance?

A: No. The 990X also wins all three single-core tests: R15 scores 86 vs 83 (3.6% faster), R20 scores 359 vs 346 (3.8% faster), and R23 scores 857 vs 826 (3.8% faster).

Q: Do these chips have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both the Core i7-990X and Core i7-980 feature 6 cores and 12 threads, with identical cache configurations: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core i7-980 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the 990X winning all 6 comparisons, and the 980 has zero wins in the dataset.

Q: Are the two processors architecturally identical?

A: Yes, in most respects. Both use the Westmere architecture with the Gulftown codename, are built on Intel's 32 nm process, have 1,170 million transistors, a 239 mm² die size, and support DDR3 triple-channel memory. The key differences are clock speeds and the unlocked multiplier on the 990X.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 990X has an average benchmark score of 1713, placing it within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U (1715) and Intel Core i7-4910MQ (1716), and 0.2% above the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and Xeon E3-1265L v4 (both 1709). The 980 averages 1693, which is 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H (1690) and 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-3770K and i7-5850HQ (both 1688), but 0.5% below the AMD Athlon Gold 3150G (1701).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a handful of specification fields. The Core i7-990X has a base clock of 3.47 GHz, while the Core i7-980 runs at 3.33 GHz. Boost clocks follow the same pattern: 3.73 GHz on the 990X versus 3.60 GHz on the 980. The 990X's multiplier is unlocked, whereas the 980's is locked, a meaningful distinction for overclocking-oriented users, though the data does not include any overclocked benchmark results.

The part numbers differ (SLBVZ for the 990X, SLBYU for the 980), and their release dates are separated by four months: the 990X launched on February 23, 2011, while the 980 launched on June 25, 2011. Both are end-of-life products, both have a TDP of 130 watts, and both use the Intel Socket 1366. Neither has integrated graphics, and neither supports ECC memory. The 990X is classified under "Core i7 Extreme (Gulftown)" while the 980 is simply "Core i7 (Gulftown)," though this branding distinction does not alter the benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, these are near-identical chips. Both use the Westmere architecture, carry the Gulftown codename, and are fabricated on Intel's 32 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Both integrate 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. Cache hierarchies are exactly the same: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

Memory support is identical as well: DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, and no ECC support. Both use PCIe Gen 2 and lack integrated graphics. The only architectural difference that appears in the data is the unlocked multiplier on the 990X, which allows frequency adjustment beyond the stock 3.47 GHz base and 3.73 GHz boost clocks. The 980's locked multiplier caps it at its stock 3.33 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. This is a functional difference for enthusiasts, but the stock-frequency benchmark data shows only a 3.6-3.8% gap, suggesting the underlying architecture contributes equally to performance in both chips.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-990X wins in every benchmark category represented in the data. In multi-core workloads, it leads the 980 by 3.7% across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). In single-core workloads, it leads by 3.6-3.8%. This makes the 990X the superior choice for any application that relies on CPU throughput, whether that is rendering, encoding, or general multitasking, though the data does not include application-specific tests beyond Cinebench and Geekbench.

The Core i7-980's only "wins" are in non-performance dimensions: it launched later (June 2011 vs February 2011), and it is not branded as an Extreme Edition part, which may appeal to buyers seeking a more mainstream product. It also has no Geekbench scores listed, whereas the 990X posts 2612 multi-core and 556 single-core in that suite, though without a 980 comparison, those numbers are informational only.

For use-case planning, the data supports a simple conclusion: choose the 990X for maximum performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. Choose the 980 only if the later release date or non-Extreme branding matters, or if the benchmark delta of roughly 4% is acceptable in exchange for a lower acquisition cost, though the data pack does not include pricing information. Both chips sit at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers in the broader landscape, with the 990X's average score of 1713 edging out the 980's 1693 by just over 1%. The 990X's rival cluster includes the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U and Intel Core i7-4910MQ within 0.1%, while the 980's nearest competitor is the AMD Athlon Gold 3150G, which beats it by 0.5%.