CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4690K vs 9590 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

9.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i5 4690K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 4690K  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4690K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4690K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD FX 9590 vs the Intel Core i5 4690K.

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4690K vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
11,924
FX 9590
13,818

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,549

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
5,060,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
11,872
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4690K
12,942
FX 9590
13,802

GeekBench

Core i5 4690K
12,942
FX 9590
13,802

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,741

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 4690K  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 10.77 pt/W 5.41 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 178.75W

details

Core i5 4690K  vs
FX 9590 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 57°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.52 GHz 5.08 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.58 GHz 5.06 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 4,652.1 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.52 GHz 5.08 GHz

integrated graphics

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 1,200 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4690K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
That's a different argument all together, completely different from 'which performs better in games'. And regarding your other comment, it really depends on the context. Sure, it might be marginally faster for heavily multithreaded tasks, but the majority of software is not, and runs on only one or two cores. Meaning that for typical daily use and games, it performs quite a bit worse.
btw. regarding these 2 processors, AMD is better regarding performance.
It is all about budget market. If you can run your game decently for small bucks, why spend more.
It's still really not... in games it's individual core speed that counts. Given that games don't efficiently use lots of cores, it doesn't make sense that an octa-core with substantially slower per-core performance would perform better in games.
Yep just like me, I would wrek your face. But untill then, nothing will happen :)
Let me simplify it for you - AMD FX 9590 is better for gaming than I5 4690K. I didn't mean that AMD as a brand is better for gaming.
hah no..
Nope...stock cpu speeds - FX beats I5 in some games like Skyrim. Newer games use all six cores so FX performs even better.
Naah...for games its good
New games use 8 cores!
AMD is better for gaming.
For gaming, you can gain 10 or more fps with a cpu overclock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Hy_3b6a4E This video is a great example that shows this.
Finally someone who can think unbiased.
all that matters is the benchmarks for the cpu if u are looking for better gaming then get an APU I agree that if you are spending enough money to get one of these CPUs then you should get a dedicated graphics card
And what programs uses more than 4 cores? Oh right. Not games. Pfft, AMD fanboi. Divide that multi core benchmark in practically half because if your up for the games and most other products, you'll only be able to use half the cores. Think im wrong? There's always google. Your uneducated approach to a flame war just lost you some faith. Oh, and take note that a lot of programs use one core even if people don't want too. It doesn't work like how you think. Scrub.
My 4690k at 4,8 would wrkt this cpu
LOL Who uses single core now? Yet another Intel fanboi benchmark!
Well, the clock speed don't matter that much for gaming though.
yep, but see the clock speeds - 9590´s 4,7GHz vs. i5´s 3,5GHz, so if you OC that intel then the FX will just sadly look at its rival.
Actually the Phenoms were decent.Bulldozers made it worser.The original Good Days of AMD CPU were the K8 Athlons.That K8 should scare the crap out of the Pentiums from Intel.Remember Back in the Days,Athlon vs Pentium were the Rage because They were FLAGSHIPS from both the rivals.Now they are just Budget CPUs.
same here, i still kepp my phenom II X4 955Be here... that is my first beast
Ok, AMD dominates the budget market (not always though) and Intel dominates the performance budget (not always though).
The scores don't all carry the same weight. The i5 single core performance (which actually matter most for gaming) absolutely crushes the FX at stock speeds while leaving plenty of room for overclocking even on stock coolers. The FX is also a power-hungry beast so over the lifetime of the device it will cost significantly more to run than the intel chip.
dont completely trust cpuboss. i visit another site and 9590 was 5% better that 4690k
I know this is old but your logic is just plain wrong! If you're spending $200+ on a CPU, it would be stupid to not buy a dedicated graphics card
comments powered by Disqus