0 Comments
| | Intel 4790K vs AMD FX 9590 |
Released April, 2014
Intel 4790K
- 4 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the Intel 4790K
| | Is hyperthreaded Yes | | Newer manufacturing process 22 nms |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much lower typical power consumption 71.5W |
by PCMag (Jul, 2014)The Core i7-4790K is still based on Intel's fourth-generation Core architecture, codenamed Haswell.
VS
Released June, 2013
AMD FX 9590
- 4.7 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 9590
| | Higher clock speed 4.7 GHz | | Higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz |
| | More cores 8 | | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.15 GHz |
by hassan-mujtaba (Aug, 2013)The FX Processors without a doubt have had a hard time keeping up with the Intel Core series processors in terms of performance and efficiency.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4790K vs 9590
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newer manufacturing process | 22 nms | vs | 32 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 71.5W | vs | 178.75W | 2.5x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,533 | vs | 1,725 | More than 45% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | 8,785 | vs | 4,905 | Around 80% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score | |||
| Significantly more l3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score | 6,925.3 | vs | 4,229.4 | Around 65% better PassMark (Overclocked) score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 17.22 pt/W | vs | 5.04 pt/W | Around 3.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 16,649 | vs | 14,735 | Around 15% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 77.09 $/year | vs | 192.72 $/year | 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 21.2 $/year | vs | 53 $/year | 2.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 33,538 | vs | 26,635 | More than 25% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Marginally newer | Apr, 2014 | vs | Jun, 2013 | Release date 9 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 4.7 GHz | vs | 4 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 5 GHz | vs | 4.4 GHz | Around 15% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 5.15 GHz | vs | 4.61 GHz | More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 5.2 GHz | vs | 4.84 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of 4790K vs FX 9590
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
4790K | by PCMag (Jul, 2014)The gains are smallest in general-application suites like PCMark 7 and larger in CPU-intensive programs like Photoshop CS6, the rendering program POV-RAY, and the 3D rendering test, Cinebench 11.5.
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | 4790K | vs | FX 9590 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 5 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | No | |
features | |||
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| XOP | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| FMA3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| FMA4 | |||
| F16C | |||
| ABM | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 350 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,250 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
details | 4790K | vs | FX 9590 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.61 GHz | 5.15 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.84 GHz | 5.2 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 6,925.3 | 4,229.4 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.61 GHz | 5.15 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 88W | 220W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 21.2 $/year | 53 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 77.09 $/year | 192.72 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 17.22 pt/W | 5.04 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 71.5W | 178.75W | |
| Intel 4790K | AMD FX 9590 |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
| VS | |
| $335 | $229 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $195 | $229 | |
| 4790 vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $229 | |
| 8350 vs 9590 | ||
| VS | |
| $335 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $195 | $340 | |
| 4790 vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $332 | $340 | |
| 4820k vs 4790K | ||
| VS | |
| $170 | $340 | |
| 8350 vs 4790K | ||
Popular Comparisons
| VS | |
| $229 | $335 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $161 | $225 | |
| N3530 vs 3110M | ||
| VS | |
| $225 | ||
| N2830 vs 3217U | ||
| VS | |
| $340 | $335 | |
| 4790K vs 4770K | ||
| VS | |
| $105 | $281 | |
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
| VS | |
| $378 | ||
| 4700MQ vs 5750M | ||
| VS | |
| 800 vs 5 Octa | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 3 comments.
Raul Alexander (02:57 PM, September 27, 2014)
Monkeyman123 (09:14 AM, August 28, 2014)
la_fakka (04:48 AM, July 28, 2014)





