CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770K vs 9590

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

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
Much more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,165 vs 1,724 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better performance per watt 13.28 pt/W vs 5.04 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,718 vs 4,905 More than 55% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Better PassMark (Overclocked) score 6,694.4 vs 4,229.4 Around 60% 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
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 4.47 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per dollar 4.47 pt/$ vs 3.33 pt/$ Around 35% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.2 GHz vs 4.66 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
14,341
FX 9590
12,784

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
1,724

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 4.47 GHz 5.15 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.66 GHz 5.2 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 4,229.4
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.47 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 13.28 pt/W 5.04 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.
Many people do a Mistake just like me going for intel is only better is single treaded and a HD4600 and it not dubble the performace to a amd single core at 4.7ghz say if 4gen i7 intel runs at 3.5ghz. Say if you fx running at 4.7ghz then you need a 4 gen intel i7 at 3ghz to match it Do the Match AMD FX-9590 beats 4770k is heavier stuff where it is most of us needed. Light treaded then just get a pentium 4 gen because we all need cpu that do heavier stuff then just a little faster in single treaded Amd Fx is a better cpu when it come to heavier stuff and where intel is expensive on that part you need the 6 core extream processor 4960x
That's not right. I have a micro-ATX Mobo (asus z97m-plus), intel stock cooler, 1 stock case fan which is almost always turned off (especially when idling) and my i7 4790 idled around 29-34C, ambient temp is around 25C. But at 100% load rendering, it went to 83-87C. But I undervolted it and now it's idling around 27C-32C (lower temps when case fan turned on) and goes up to 72-74C at full load! Don't forget, just with the stock cooler and it's really not the better ones of Haswell because it went up to 1.15-1.28v at 4 cores 3.8ghz (that's why I wanted and could underclock it to 1.058v at full load).
You obviously don't know how to install a stock cooler. I don't think I've ever gone above 45ºC on high load with any of the stock fans I've installed on any machine in my company. I've been in IT for 17 years, though. Maybe you should learn how to install one properly. Just sayin'.
You honestly don't save as much as you think. Around $25 over a three-year period.
the power consumption on the amd is alot more? you end up saving money over time
8350---------------------> 4770k goodbye amd hello intel
Okay, no problem. Email sent.
i will , but i'll be grateful if you add me in fb or skype cuz i'm in hurry then i will contact in your site for sure
That's the website that's still under construction. If you have questions on components, you can use the email address above. If you find the website is missing information, you can send an email.
you mean http://cpugrade.com/ ?
I did indeed get your message, however, I've decided that it would be better for you to use the new email address in my edited message above. This is directly linked to the website that I'm currently working on, and so will fit your needs better.
you got my msg ? I text you i think
Oky i will now
This isn't my site (mine's better!), but if you want to contact me, feel free to use techsupport@cpugrade.com :)
There is a chat in this site ? so i could contact you for more questions if you don't mind
Nope, it's not going to make a difference seeing as you'll be using a dedicated graphics card. If you were using an integrated graphics chip such as the ones found in the A10 series, then yeah, it would have made a difference. However, with dedicated cards, they have their own memory and so your system RAM is entirely used for storing program data. For that, 1866 to 2133, is going to be unnoticeable.
thanx man i appreciate your help ! one last question, memory in FX 8350 is 1833 Mhz but in A10 6800k it's 2133 is that would show deffirence when playin or overclocking ?
I personally find any motherboard that isn't by ASUS, to be inferior and I won't buy it. ASUS/ASRock boards have the best features, whether it be for protection or to get extra performance out of your machine.
oky If i go with Fx 8350 what do you say about the ASUS crosshair v formula Z ? it's better than msi 970 gamin right ?
Definitely. The 270X will play a lot of games on highest settings @ 1080p, but *some* games may require a higher card for their highest settings. Certainly, you won't be playing any game below medium settings with the 270X, and more often than not, high settings.
so I go with the FX 8350 & i will play games smothely & allow me to play at high or may be ultras better than in A10 6800k ?
Yes, around double the centralized processing performance in multi-threaded loads, although you're unlikely to see a difference in gaming until you turn up the settings and play at 1080p or above. In single-threaded loads, however, the A10 series is better due to the newer, more refined architecture. But don't let that alter your decision as the FX-8350 isn't exactly slow, even by today's standards.
so you say that FX 8350 is better for gaming when adding graphic card than the A10 series ?
FX-8350 + R9 270X would be the better performing option. I would be inclined to suggest an ASUS motherboard with the Gigabyte edition of the R9 270X.
what you think if I build pc gaming, wich is better i go with A10 6800k and motherboard msi A88X-45G or i go with FX 8350 8 core & motherboard msi 970 gaming/ASUS crosshair v formula Z with adding graphic card R9 270X ?
comments powered by Disqus