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
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm 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
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,165 vs 1,719 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better performance per watt 12.72 pt/W vs 4.83 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
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 (64-bit) score 15,778 vs 13,802 Around 15% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz vs 3.9 GHz Around 30% higher turbo clock speed
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 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
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 10,860 vs 6,694.4 More than 60% better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.09 GHz vs 4.47 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per dollar 5.92 pt/$ vs 4.31 pt/$ More than 35% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 4.52 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

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

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 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 84W 220W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 12.72 pt/W 4.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 178.75W

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 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.47 GHz 5.09 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.52 GHz 4.88 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.47 GHz 5.09 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 1,250 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 4770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
AMD is better because its price is more affordable. If you do not think that throw money in garbage with the intel.
People don't seem to understand the difference between what the TDP value actually stands for, for Intel and AMD. It's not the same thing. And I guarantee you, clock an i7 up to 5.00 GHz and you too will be pumping out over 200 watts.
less performance, 220w tdp, water cooling necessary, 1000 w good quality psu recommended by amd, espensive motehrboard, in the end fx 9590 is too espensive.
Calculating all of the benchmarks and dividing by 6, you get 6,113 for the i7, and 5,746 for the FX. However, CPU Boss is extremely bad for anything of real use. I mean, there's one comparison where a Pentium 4 is outshining a Core2 Duo, or something like that (suffice to say, it shouldn't be outshining anything!).
Does no one else notice that if you actually calculate the averages that the 4770k gets an 8.4 and the FX 9590 gets an 8.6(rounded, it's actually, 8.55). So unless CPU Boss is using some really weird ass weighting system, they intentionally changed the 4770k's score to be higher.
Intel: Performance(8.8), Single Core Performance(9.8), Overclocking(8.5) and Value (6.5) Total: 33.6 divided by 4 = 8.4 while displayed is 9.1 WHY ? AMD average is approximately correct.
amd fx has a better clock speed (4.7 to 5 ghz) but intel is only most preferred by buyers.in gaming too intel succeeds amd ? pls any one tell me the reason.
how do you calculate the performance score?
Enthusiast on itself however is hardly a market you can run a company on. It is way too small. The higher end chips Intel produces are effectively also Xeon chips and both Intel and AMD have a big part of their business in the server and data markets. Thát is where high end chips get used or where the technology is actually aimed at. Next is the (semi) pro market, workstations etc. But a bunch of geeks running overclocks to encode their video two seconds faster really have little to nothing to offer in terms of volume of sales. And since AMD cannot compete on high end due their lacking power efficiency, them stepping out of that market was probably a sensible choice; at least for the time being as Intel has a much better baseline with their own 22nm fabs.
Truth be told, both companies need each other afloat to stay alive. And that's why neither one are going anywhere, which is great for us. Intel chips would still be stuck to a 4 GB RAM limit, if it wasn't for AMD's instruction set, and, unlike NVIDIA, AMD gave it to other vendors.
Considering and lost a lot with Intel doing some shady illegal shit with the pentium 4
Bull if you add up the numbers the amd is better
Maxwell architecture has fewer SPUs/cores than Kepler, but more efficient. Just nitpicking here, as it's not the number of cores that matters. I've actually learned a lot since the comments I originally posted about AMD. I've got myself an i5-4690K and seen for myself first hand that Intel is indeed much faster than anything AMD has to offer for mainstream use (gaming, web surfing, etc.) That said, I don't think AMD has necessarily pushed the development of Intel and Nvidia. Perhaps it has pushed them somewhat faster, but even if AMD was out of the picture, Intel and Nvidia would still need to make compelling advancements if they want people to continue buying their products to continue generating revenue. Perhaps the advancements would be slower, but that's not necessarily such a bad thing. That would also mean more time for software to catch up since by the time majority of devs are updating/releasing software for the latest architectures and technologies, new stuff is out... plus with slower advancement would come a slower rate of pumping out new silicon. I dunno, not a big deal to me if advancement slows down as I have no complaints with the state of technology whatsoever. But anyways, yeah there's not much point going AMD as it does a poorer job at higher power requirements. I've found out via a build I did for my friend (using i3-4150) that even Intel's lower end processors seem to best AMD's chips in spite of everyone praising AMD as the budget-friendly option. o__0
wtf are u doing amd, why 68.25W VS 178.75W WTF IS THAT??? almost 3 4770k of consume??? DAFUQ
Are you Canadian? If so, tar sands aren't environmentally friendly at all, same for natural gas. Even if you live in areas where renewable energy is used, you are connected to the grid anyway. Your energy consumption affects the grid all the same. If you use more "green energy" than it's available in your area, then power will be redirected from other places in order to satisfy your demand, that power might very well come from fossil fuels. The point is that even if you live in a "green energy" area, you still have to be responsible. Anyway, most energy isn't consumed by people at home. The industrial, financial and service sectors are the main consumers of it. Now on topic, AMD processors perform worse (or similarly, at best) than their Intel counterparts using more power and cores and with higher clocks. This rule applies pretty much every time AMD releases a new architecture, as tests all over the internet show. That tells me that AMD processors are of lesser quality, more inefficient. It's true that AMD processors are generally cheaper than Intel's, and that's a great thing, but to claim they are better is a mistake, imho. They are cheaper and similar (using more cores and higher clocks), at best, not better. Anyway, I don't want to see AMD throwing in the towel, big companies like Intel or Nvidia NEED competitors. The last generations of Intel chips (including Sandy Bridge) have been that good and mostly affordable thanks to AMD's efforts to keep up. Same goes for Nvidia gpus, which made remarkable improvements on their architectures thanks to AMD's products. Do you remember the GTX 580, just 4 years ago? Just 512 cores, now we have the GTX 980 with 2000+ cores, why? AMD's higher number of cores (shaders) surely influenced that change. Nvidia likes to keep prices up, we all know that, but without AMD, Nvidia cards would be even more expensive than they already are.
AMD is better it protects my freedom, Intel is for jews and half jews. AMD wants to save the world. Intel does not. Malala Yousafzai perfers AMD over intel. "why fight the terrorist when you can fight them...on online gaming" She has a monster rig and she loves OCin' AMD chips. If you think your american enough use the AMD processor.
I see AMD as the female and Intel as the man since so many like dodobird see themselves all high and mighty.
good. very good. just make us PC gamers look like complete assholes
Its like saying a MAN (AMD) is weaker than a woman (Intel)
So SAD...
It's funny you say that because a key component of Intel's architecture is actually AMD's architecture, and it's been that way since 2006. The FX is comparable with an i7 when working with multi-threaded loads; sure, not up to the 4770K standards, but definitely up to the 2600K and 3770K, and bearing in mind that these parts are of identical release years, there's nothing to complain about. The FX will beat any Core i5 in such situations. In everything else, the Core i5 will beat the FX, of course, but it's definitely not a reason to consider the FX chips for "the poor."
This is pretty simple. If you're a broke college student or have made some bad life choices and need a cheap but decent piece of computer, go amd FX. But once you grow up and get a real job and aren't broke, get an intel i5 or i7. You can talk raw throughput all you want, but I noone ever wants to talk optimization. Software is designed for the Intel architecture and when feet hit the pavement they almost always run better on an Intel platform.
buy a 4790k for $250 at micro center.
Thats a damn lie and you know it
This is a joke, saying the 4770k is better is wrong if you find the average of all of the scores in the top the fx 9590 comes out higher with a 8.5 average score over the 8.3 average of the 4770k
comments powered by Disqus