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!
Front view of Intel Core i5 4690K

Intel Core i5 4690K

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 6600K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 6600K

Report a correction
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Better CompuBench 1.5 video composition score 14.26 fps vs 11.23 fps More than 25% better CompuBench 1.5 video composition score
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Apr, 2014 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of Intel Core i5 4690K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4690K

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 3.95 pt/$ vs 0.89 pt/$ Around 4.5x better performance per dollar
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 11,924 vs 5,051 More than 2.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much better performance per watt 10.77 pt/W vs 2.45 pt/W Around 4.5x better performance per watt
Better turbo clock speed 1,200 MHz vs 1,150 MHz Around 5% better turbo clock speed
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.72 °C vs 64 °C Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 6600K vs 4690K

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i5 6600K
35.25 mHash/s
Core i5 4690K
13.73 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Core i5 6600K
28.75 mPixels/s
Core i5 4690K
17.18 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i5 6600K
1.91 fps
Core i5 4690K
1.74 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 6600K
209.7 MB/s
Core i5 4690K
5,060,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 6600K  vs
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz 3.9 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 91W 88W
Annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year 21.2 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year 77.09 $/year
Performance per watt 2.45 pt/W 10.77 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.94W 71.5W


Architecture FSB DMI 2.0
Number of links 0 0
Transfer rate 8,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s


Core i5 6600K  vs
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L3 cache 6 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 72.72°C


Overclocked clock speed 4.54 GHz 4.51 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.57 GHz 4.58 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.54 GHz 4.51 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 Intel® HD Graphics 4600
Number of displays supported 3 3
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz 1,200 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 65,536 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Core i5 6600K
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 4690K
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 25 comments.
4690k is pretty good. I bought mine for 200 USD and it's in my system rn and it does great, and has a better per core performance, and in gaming, framerates and resolutions are still the same, so I would go with the 4960k, but if you want something a bit cheaper and has a newer architecture, the 6600k will be the right option.
1) The problem is not all RAM speeds are the same. If you compare faster or overclocked DDR3 RAM 2133Mhz/2400Mhz with cheaper/slower DDR4 RAM (2133/2400Mhz), you would have almost no difference in the gaming benchmarks that care about RAM speed. 2) The actual performance improvements is negligible when you use benchmarks and applications that aren't affected by faster RAM. 3) You need to compare apples to apples. If you want to compare CPUs, then compare CPUs while accounting for RAM speeds or use similar RAM speeds. Similarly, if a new motherboard allows faster SATA speeds for SSDs or faster PCIe bus speed for GPUs, you need to account for that too. Otherwise, it's misleading to say Skylake cpus are much better than Haswell cpu when in reality, the improvement was just from the motherboard and there were very few improvements to the CPU itself with IPC increase being negligible.
well point is that in games 6600k with ddr4 (you cant really use other then that lol) is 10-20% faster then 4690k..
The Haswell 4000 series basically has the same IPC as the Skylake 6000s. The IPC improvement is less than 5%. Any fps gain you see in games vs a comparably clocked Haswell will be more due to the faster DDR4 RAM than any cpu improvements.
Incorrect. In practice, the 6600k performs almost exactly the same as the 4690k. The IPC improvement of the 6600k over the 4690k is less than 5%. The small difference in small games in that video is due to the faster DDR4 RAM. Techspot did a review of RAM speeds, and showed that faster RAM can improve fps by 5-10%. This review, for example, shows a pretty large fps increase in games when you go from DDR4: 2133 to DDR-4000:
You know that clock speeds doesn't say all abou the performance of an cpu? gigahertz isn't equal to gigahertz!
6600K preset or better wait for the 7th generation Intel? I think it comes to year-end Compro ahora el 6600k o mejor espero a la 7 generación de intel que ya viene?
Wrong. They both perform exactly the same at single core. Both having a base clock of 3.5Ghz and a boost clock of 3.9Ghz it is impossible for the 4690k to be better in single core performance. Dont trust this site, trust intel themselves as they list the exact specs. Although in all seriousness, the 6600k wins due to being much better to overclock with.
Latency is very important. The average modern CPU spends 99% of its time storing and moving memory, that be from cache or RAM.
Sure if someone is doing 4K bottleneck is a possibility but most CPU of the last few years are not going to bottleneck anytime soon and not with the 1080 or 1440p.
Exactly what really matter when it comes to high end games is the GPU mostly now. All of these CPU most of the time run in the 30 to 40% and upgrading is meaningless. Still I am with you best to hold off and see how both camps measure in real world gaming. At least for 1440p and under. 4K sound like Nvidia has that market for now and forcible future.
You wait as long as your CPU is able to do its work without reaching its full potential. For example 4960K running Witcher 3 does not go above 50% so upgrading will in no way mean better gaming. The other computer I am running AMD FX-8350 and the same game is running just lightly over 60% which again means no different in game play. To many people seem to be on the mindset of mine is bigger manhood than yours and seems to be why people spend money even though their system can run the high end games just fine. Video on the other hand is a different story. For the price the GTX 1070 on a 1440p is the sweet spot that I am waiting for. Though I am tempted to see what they do with the AMD new cards and their true street price.
yeah, I;ll go with the 6600k, I have a deepcool lucifer, I;ll stick with that....just waiting on card prices as for now..
thanks man...
Get a 6600K, 8-16GB RAM, a Gigabyte/ASUS mobo, and you're good to go. But if you want to play games at max, then you'd probably want to get a GTX 10 series GPU or wait for AMD RX series
If you're building a new PC, then the 6600K, probably watercooled, will result in awesome OC, but you could use air cooling too, no harm done. :) Wait for RX 480 before you splash your cash on the GTX 1070, don't buy a GTX 970 as for now, by performance/price, it is useless when building a new PC. Trust me, I have a GTX 970, i7 6700K and my 970 can't even keep up framerate with my XL2411Z 144hz, it barely reaches 80 on average of lots of games. I'm kind of stuck between the GTX 1070 GAMING X and Sea Hawk X right now, but I have decided to wait for a few AMD cards to come up because if their claims of OC and performance etc. are true, then AMD might trump over NVidia this time.
It's just that CPUBoss is messing up, see 6700K vs 4790K and difference between their single core, and there is no need to get a 6600K if you have a 4690K
I'm upgrading and would like to know what you guys think, I'm interested in a 4690k or a 6600k and possibly a gtx 970 or depending on actual price a 1070, or maybe even the new rx 480...thats what I'm thinking of pairing with, right now I'm more interested in cpu power, so a wee bit of guidance would be nice as Iam an amd and need to change, I have been using my old 965 11 x4 phenom black, bought it new when it was released (2009/2010) its done ok but is struggling let me know what is best I'm swapping out my ASUS 990FX/ FX6300 this weekend for a Z97/ 4690K. This guide shows how to do it without reinstalling Windows. I'll let you know if it works for me.
Ofcourse it performs better in multi core, I'm talking about single core.
in practice 6600k is alot (10-20%+) faster ...
Yeah, say hello to Latency for me... lol The real world differences between RAM speeds is negligible to the point of it being close to a non-factor, especially when compared to the differences between CPUs, GPUs, and RAM density.
I agree: it's the truth that your commented escalated the conversation into something outside of what we were discussing -- whether it makes sense to wait for AMD Zen.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
comments powered by Disqus