CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770K vs 9590

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 1 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 4770K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4770K  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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

Intel Core i7 4770K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 4770K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4770K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4770K

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 178.75W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.74 vs 1.28 More than 35% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,165 vs 1,737 Around 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Significantly better performance per watt 13.68 pt/W vs 5.29 pt/W More than 2.5x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 6,694.4 vs 3,856.2 Around 75% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 192.72 $/year 2.6x lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 53 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 14,374 vs 13,086 Around 10% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction
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 turbo clock speed 5 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 30% higher turbo clock speed
Much higher clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.15 GHz vs 4.53 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.27 GHz vs 4.69 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4770K vs FX 9590

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 4770K
14,374
FX 9590
13,086

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 9590
8,529
Futuremark 3DMark has three primary benchmark tests that you can run and which test you should be running depends on the system that you are benchmarking on.
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)

Passmark

Core i7 4770K
10,016
FX 9590
10,589
Core i7 4770K FX 9590 @ cpubenchmark.net
If you look closer at the results for Cloud Gate you'll see that AMD won in the graphics tests, but lost in the Physics test, so Futuremark 3DMark must have more weight on the physics test than the GPU test in this test scenario.
Core i7 4770K | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2013)

Passmark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,737

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4770K  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
Is hyperthreaded Yes No

features

Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
XOP
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
EM64T
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

Core i7 4770K  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 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 4.53 GHz 5.15 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.69 GHz 5.27 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 3,856.2
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.53 GHz 5.15 GHz

power consumption

TDP 84W 220W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 13.68 pt/W 5.29 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 178.75W
Intel Core i7 4770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
A 50-100W difference isn't detrimental to the environment. For comparison, you'd have to leave an AMD system running on full load for about 48+ hours to make a difference in power consumption equal to a single load of clothes in the dryer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being environmentally friendly, but the difference between an Intel and AMD chip is a drop in the bucket compared to the things we can do day-to-day to reduce our emissions. Considering we don't actually use our computers on full load 24/7, the difference is more like 2 loads of laundry per month (or less). There's also more things to consider. It's more environmentally friendly to use a chip with 50W higher power draw than to buy a new low-power chip every time one is released (because that's one more chip that needs to be made in a factory and transported every year, which uses resources and pollutes). Naturally if you plan to buy one CPU now that will last for years, yeah you'll save a good amount of power over that time. Where I live this isn't an issue since our power comes from hydro (renewable and no emissions), so our electricity usage isn't causing damage, and I'm especially not worried about a difference of less than 100W. Also Intel doesn't care about the environment... they're only trying to reduce power consumption to get their way into the mobile market where they are struggling since their processors do not do well in sub-10W market compared to Qualcomm, Samsung and others who are making far better performance per watt in these environments. AMD has actually made phenomenal advancements with their Steamroller architecture - if you look up Kaveri reviews keep an eye out for the 35W TDP restriction. At under 35W for both the CPU and GPU on a quad-core chip they can outperform Intel's 55W Pentiums while also offering even better graphics than Intel's HD 4600. All in all, do what you want. If you want an i5 or i7 for lower power consumption, power to you. But AMD isn't detrimental to the environment (any more than any corporation who mass produces products, anyhow). We certainly don't need to worry about a computer consuming 50-100W more on load for a couple hours per day. Though yes - Nvidia has made astonishing power efficiency advancement with Maxwell architecture. It's worth noting prior to Maxwell (GTX 750/750 Ti and upcoming GTX 800 cards) that AMD/ATI cards have had better idle power and about the same load power... AMD cards only consumed a significant amount more than their comparable Nvidia card when doing compute tasks, but they're much more powerful in that regard (so performance per watt is still about the same or better - it consumes more power to perform better when it comes to computing).
sorry about your opinion about how much difference are between intel and amd processors because the only thing really matters is be care about nature enviroment, tell thas to AMD. intel and nvidia are very compromised to reduce consumption. (i dont speak english i hope this msj be clear)
Seriously 22nn to a 32nn process, well see when amd gets to a 22nn process.
Can you provide benchmark of fx cpus outperforming intel i5 ? how ever in multi threaded amd might win in some apps against i5.
You forgot that AMD APUs have much better integrated graphics than Intel's, and the consoles run on the integrated APU. See how good the console games are looking, for only the price of 400$ with both he same 100$ Jaguar chip! Just wait till game developers utilize 6 and 8 core CPU, or the A-series APU, then AMD is the ultimate bang-in-the-buck! AMD is not joining the high-end price ship (maybe not the best) and keeps for good value. You could buy a Quad-Core Athlon II X4 760K for only 80$ which blows the 130$ Intel i3 in gaming or everything vs the 80$ Celeron, except you seek for low power consumption, but that's another story.
30 Celsius at high load with the stock cooler on the 4670K? Very clearly faulty temperature monitors, software or something else. The majority of Intel IVB and Haswell chips idle at 35-40 and under full load run at 80-90C with the stock cooler. Don't be so quick to talk about the AMD fan bus when you're very clearly mistaken on multiple fronts.
The chip isn't of lesser quality; AMD has struggled with cache performance due to deeper pipelines (which was an unfortunate consequence of having so many cores without increasing the die size). In many areas it's not as good - power consumption, IPC, cache & memory latency. But in price:performance you cannot beat an AMD chip. The FX 6300 for less than an i3 4130 while being well over 25% better in heavily threaded applications. The FX 8320 for just slightly over the cost of an i3 4130 outperforming an i5 4670K in heavily threaded applications. AMD's business strategies have not been the best, and jumping ship to entirely APUs, while perhaps too early to speak, I think was pretty much the nail in the coffin as it's such a small market, and they've now gone almost two years without any enthusiast chip release (not counting re-binned chips). AMD is in dire straits financially, and I don't see them doing a 180 any time soon. It'll be a shame, since Intel is not consumer-friendly. Also, AMD FX chips generally run cooler than Intel chips at similar clock speeds since Intel uses utter garbage internal thermal compound. Compare an Intel chip @ 5GHz to this FX chip and I guarantee you with identical coolers the Intel chip will be two-figures higher in temperature (in celsius).
I have been rocking the 920 OC to 4.0 for years. Most my benchmarks are right along with the 4770 or better in some. I paired this with a 780ti and 12 gigs of ram OC. And I chew through all new games.
I use a stock cooler for my i5-4670k and that beats this rubbish chip by default.. I only run at 30 Celsius even at high load, buddy you need to get off the AMD fan bus and realize the facts are all pointing towards the truth that AMD isn't the king anymore. You shouldn't need an aftermarket heat sink just to cool your card when it isn't overclocked, that is just utterly ridiculous. The power consumption points to a deeper problem anyways, AMD uses a cheaper manufacturing process and they make their chips more cheap than Intel. Most of the time the AMD can never even reach its full potential because not many programs use 8 cores, and because of that fact the Intel will smoke it in basically any real life situation. Then when you finally do get into a real world situation that uses 8 cores.. You have to remember that those cores are going to be running everything else as well, so where an Intel would take maybe 1 core to run a game or movie.. AMD Is going to require more cores due to the lack of quality behind them. It is sort of like sticking 500HP into a 1990s Sedan.. You never really.. Reach the full power. But stick 500HP into a Mercedes and you'll feel it. Same thing goes with AMD vs Intel.
You have to remember the extra power shows that the chip is of lesser quality and it also puts out more heat. So as you overclock that to compete with the Intel chip you're going to have exponential growth in the power required to simply cool the AMD chip. The Intel chip on the other hand could get up to 4.5 or even 5 and probably only get to around the power that the AMD chip is using at the start of it. AMD Makes cheap cards and clocks them crazy high in an attempt at competing against Intel. That is why they've officially stepped out of the processor wars as of 2012. They admitted publicly that they're not going to compete against Intel anymore. That is from AMD, the company that apparently makes 'good' chips. I'm sorry, but that company basically made false promises and rumors a few years back with the emergence of the FX series and now they've pretty much gone broke.
Erm, you can get a cooler that dissapeats 250w for around 50 bucks, and noone in life should use a stock cooler on an i7 k processor, may asswell get a xeon ot i7 4770 non k
You have to buy a heat sink for the 9590, and a good one because of the 220w tdp, which could run 50-100 extra dollars. Then you pay 3 times more in energy costs on top of that. All that for similar to less performance. No thanks
Actually the newer the manufacturing process, the more transistors there are. An Intel i7 4770k has approximately 1.6 billion transistors while a FX 9590 has at most 1.3 billions transistors. Bigger area doesn't always mean more.
Imagine if the FX serie, were 22nms .....hope next get FX or whatever cpu they will do.. it will go straight 20nms.. I do like Intel over amd cuz of tons of rumos.. but multicore is the future,, and i was always thinking amd with "8 core" will stay alive and rule the word.. but now intel came up with a TRUE 8 CORE for desktops ... u.u
The FX 9590 at 5GHz is faster than the 4770K at 3.9GHz (turbo speeds), unless you're going by single-threaded performance... but if you care about single-threaded performance might as well just get a Pentium for $75. Unless you're really eco-conscious, and props if you are, the power consumption isn't a huge deal. On idle the 9590 uses similar amount to an Intel chip, and under load it uses a good 100-120W more. For most people, annual difference in energy bill will be less than $15 per year. It's also nice that for $300 you can get the FX 9590 with liquid cooling included, and you can get a good 990FX board for cheaper than a good Z87 board. I'd say for most users, the FX 9590 is honestly a good buy. But an even better buy would be an FX 8320 for $150 and overclock it to 4.5GHz for unbeatable price:performance. And obviously, if money is no object and you need the best performance possible, nothing beats Intel's socket 2011 chips :D
throwng money down the toilet? you're saying having MUCH lower power consumption and much better perfomance per core is that?
They choose AMD over intel because for gaming you don't need a 300-buck CPU. Normally it is the graphics capability that matters. I am a supporter of AMD (not an uneducated fan), and for cheap gaming rigs I would definitely recommend APU, but if you want to use your computer for other tasks like video editing, etc, intel CPUs are probably more powerful at the same price point.
Remember, CPUBoss gives the win to the company who pays them more
Probably also a coupon code too. When I buy items online and there's a coupon code window to enter in I always google to find one. :)
Me, Have you ever thought about 32 nm AMD architecture vs 22 nm Intel architecture. This allows chip to put more transistor on the same area. As you increase the distance between two transistor leads to take much time to pass information.
I picked up aan i7 4770k at micro center for $250 this past weekend.
The amd 9590 has better price to performence if your concerned about it
but..most computers/programs don't use more than 4-cores. Let's say AMD's cores single-core performance is half of Intel. That means a 8-Core AMD CPU will perform at the level of a Quad-Core Intel. Plus Intel seem to perform better overclocked. When the 9590 was released at nearly $1000 it was a stupid choice when a 6-core i7 could be bought at at similar or lower price. Once programs start using more than 4-cores Intel will release consumer versions of 8-core processors (although at really high prices) Then they will have taken the top/high end market again.
hey, Intel is better but still I like AMD!
actually not true. For the presidents day sale tigerdirect had the i7 4770k for $280.....
comments powered by Disqus