Winner
AMD FX 9590
CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 9590 based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details Intel Core i7 4702MQ vs AMD FX 9590 |
Released April, 2013
Intel Core i7 4702MQ
- 2.2 GHz
- Quad core
8.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i7 4702MQ
 | Much lower typical power consumption 30.06W | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Much better performance per watt 19.28 pt/W |
VS
Released July, 2013
AMD FX 9590
- 4.7 GHz
- Octa core
- Unlocked
5.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD FX 9590
| | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much higher clock speed 4.7 GHz |
| | Is unlocked Yes | | Much higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4702MQ vs 9590 among all CPUs
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 | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
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? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 8.8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 30.06W | vs | 178.75W | 5.9x lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 32 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 19.28 pt/W | vs | 5.39 pt/W | More than 3.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 100 °C | vs | 57 °C | More than 75% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 8.91 $/year | vs | 53 $/year | 5.9x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 32.41 $/year | vs | 192.72 $/year | 5.9x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | vs | 1 MB/core | 50% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Better geekbench 3 single core score | 2,820 | vs | 2,549 | More than 10% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much higher clock speed | 4.7 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | Around 2.2x higher clock speed | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Much higher turbo clock speed | 5 GHz | vs | 3.2 GHz | More than 55% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 5.16 pt/$ | vs | 1.89 pt/$ | Around 2.8x better performance per dollar | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 5.06 GHz | vs | 3.08 GHz | Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Slightly more l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Better PassMark score | 10,589 | vs | 7,135 | Around 50% better PassMark score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 5.06 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | More than 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Apr, 2013 | Release date 3 months later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4702MQ vs FX 9590
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
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i7 4702MQ | vs | FX 9590 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.7 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 5 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Octa core | |
| Is unlocked | No | 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 | |||
| 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 | 37W | 220W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.91 $/year | 53 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 32.41 $/year | 192.72 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 19.28 pt/W | 5.39 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 30.06W | 178.75W | |
details | Core i7 4702MQ | vs | FX 9590 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| 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 - 100°C | Unknown - 57°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.08 GHz | 5.06 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.2 GHz | 5.06 GHz | |
| PassMark (Overclocked) | 2,032.1 | 10,860 | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.08 GHz | 5.06 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 400 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,150 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1866 | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-1333 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 29,866.66 MB/s | |
 Intel Core i7 4702MQ  Report a correction |  AMD FX 9590 Report a correction |
Systems
Looking for a system?
- 1 laptop with the Intel Core i7 4702MQ, starting from $2,087
- 2 desktops with the AMD FX 9590, starting from $3,000
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $304 | $463 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 6700K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $304 | $169 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs 8350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $304 | $328 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $304 | $360 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $304 | $317 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i5 4690K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $304 | $330 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i5 6600K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $510 | |
| Intel Core i7 4702MQ vs 4700MQ | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $397 | |
| Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
| | VS | |
| $360 | $463 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $238 | ||
| Intel Core i5 3470 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $165 | $66 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs AMD A4 5300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U | ||
