CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4770K vs 9590


Benchmark performance using all cores

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

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

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


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

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!

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 lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 178.75W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly 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 1,721 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better performance per watt 13.47 pt/W vs 5.12 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
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 14,361 vs 12,840 More than 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 4.48 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.18 GHz vs 4.68 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
FX 9590

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

FX 9590
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)


Core i7 4770K
FX 9590
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

Specifications Full list of technical specs


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


Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes


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


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


Overclocked clock speed 4.48 GHz 5.15 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.68 GHz 5.18 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,694.4 4,229.4
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.48 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 13.47 pt/W 5.12 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 178.75W
Intel Core i7 4770K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 25 comments.
I was AMD then switched to Intel (Q6600) and then back to AMD (current system). I went back to AMD to save money. I saw that I could essentially double my overall system performance and not spend a great deal of money for the combination of MoBo, CPU & memory. Seems AMD doesn't have that much of price advantage anymore.
See the differences on the price?
Confuse about the comment's lays on the post, still I would like to prefer AMD, the BOSS of all GPU as well ALU in same class.
"I'm not a fan" ... "AMD FOREVER" ... yeah, contradicting yourself there. Classic fanboy comment. Honestly, why do we need to bicker about these things? AMD is good. Intel is good. If you're after a cheaper alternative to Intel's Core i5, there's the FX-6300. An alternative to the Core i7, there's the FX-8320 and FX-8350. A Pentium and Core i3 alternative? Athlon X4 760K, Athlon X4 860K or A10-7850K. There are problems with all chips. You're not going to get anything perfect out of silicon. Every chip has its ups and downs, and every specific chip is different from one another, which is why overclock results vary. Two more things. Firstly, Intel is definitely better with single-threaded applications. For the five people out there that still use any single-threaded applications, you will see much better performance with Intel models. The rest of us are happily using multi-threaded applications, where the core count and frequency are sadly (if you're Intel) catered for, before Hyper-Threading. It's just easier to program for more cores, than it is for a split core. The tech has simply been there longer. AMD's Piledriver architecture is great at multi-threaded workloads. In fact, the FX-8350 is only around 10% behind the Core i7-4770K in this regard, while you save a lot of money. If you'd much rather have the Core i7, by all means, go ahead. They are both great processors; one is just much cheaper than the other. AMD has always undercut Intel with the prices. And lastly, avoid the Bulldozer architecture (first generation FX models, for example). They are pretty weak, when compared to the Piledriver generation (and some are even more expensive - yeah, work that one out). I have nothing against the Steamroller architecture, except maybe that the central processing side of things are a little weak for a quad-core high-end APU. We're talking on-par with a Core i3-4360 and Core i5-2320. However, I'm sure we'll see some improvement with Carrizo next year. And with an architecture like that, GPU performance is always more important anyway.
Listen guys ewryone knows that intel is paying milions and bilions just for marketing. When you play a game on the start it says : ,,It works best with intel core i7,, and thats not true its all lies. Ewery seller wants to say that amd is sh?t and intel is awesome becase its 3 times or 2,5 times more expensive. I looked a couple of times acctualy a lot of times ewery time amd is better seriesly guys. AMD is cheaper better the only bad thing of amd proccessors is that they use more wats and thats because amd-s have something that uses energy and all those wats. BTW amd fx buldozer 8350 is much better then the best intel. I will always pick amd im not a fan i just think i should use the best and i do so AMD FOREVER. Im sorry for some mistakes im not a groun up still so i dont know english perfectly!!! PEACE !!! :-) !
In fact, i have an i7 3770k clocked at stock, with an corsair h100i and i get more than 55° celsius in full load (With a RL). I don´t belive that anyone get 30° with a stock fan unless hi´s living inside a fridge
The Xbox one and PS4 are using AMD 8 core chips. Over time more and more games will be optimized for AMD processors. Also as time progresses there should be more applications being optimized to utilize more cores. AMD is good enough for gaming and you can't really beat the price/performance ratio of an AMD chip and its life span for upgrades since it uses the same socket over and over.
amd should stick with the mid range market, where most of us are
So, after having your arguments (or lack thereof) ripped apart and debunked - any chance you could own up to this fact, and perhaps apologize to Erik for writing things like "Did you get a math degree from Wal-Mart? Seriously....GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!"? Are you Man enough to do that, Pac-Man?
even Intel i7 4770k is a winner, I wonder why peoples give the AMD FX 9590 more like then the i7 4770k ? Because of the prices ????
A third of the power consumption, significantly better single core performance, better overclocking... How could the 9590 even think to compete with the 4770k but in price... Oh wait, the 9590 is $10 more. Oh, and it requires liquid cooling, so add at LEAST $50. What advantage does it have? Nothing. Or at least nothing that matters.
Absolutely. The A10-6800K is a way more cost effective option, costing around $140 and still being able to play most games at 1080P 30FPS or 720P at 45-60FPS with 2133MHz RAM.
Of course, and I agree with you. In the 'States and apparently Canada too, the 7850K is poorly priced. However, it remains the best choice for users who want a purely integrated configuration.
Means absolutely nothing. I doubt the chips are even reaching the TDP. And you will start to see TDP increases in Intel chips too, now that Intel has finally managed to break the 4.00 GHz barrier. As the frequency increases in 100 MHz increments, the thermal output increases significantly. That's the side effect of silicon.
In Canada the A10-7850K costs just $20 less than an i5-4430, which is a good 20% faster. But even moreso is the fact that an A10-7850K costs the same price as an Athlon 760K (almost identical performance) and a GTX 750... this combo offers tremendously improved graphical performance, with almost 3x the gaming performance in the GTX 750 vs the integrated R7 250... without the need to buy faster RAM since you have a dedicated GPU. A10-7850K : about $180 Athlon 760K: about $90 GTX 750: about $100 IMO it's worth the $10 to have 2-3x better gaming performance :)
amd sucks, look at TDP!
were not talking about the peasant boxes here now are we
What you are describing, Jett, is Microsoft's hotfix for Windows 7 and Windows 8, and not the true architectural design of the chip. It's simply the method to gain the true potential out of the chips, by assigning the chip into physical and logical cores. Understand that there is a difference between what Windows is telling you, and the true design of the chip. In Intel's case, what Windows says is true. Here, it's false.
There's no point in trying to speak logic into fanboys. It won't get through. But, I fully agree with you.
There was a point in time when AMD was actually superior. A small company that developed in Texas, outshined a multinational company from California, resulting in Intel being forced to up its game. When you think about that, AMD isn't bad at all. Not many small companies can damage larger companies in the way AMD did. Credit where credit is due. AMD chips at the moment are weaker, but they are also significantly cheaper. The FX-8350 sits between the i5-4670K and the i7-4770K, and costs just £125 at the moment on Amazon, while the other two cost £170 and £240, respectively. And then we come to the APUs - incredibly superior integrated graphical processors with hUMA technology make them a viable choice for users on a budget. There is nothing wrong with that.
I completely agree. I'd much rather get the FX-8350 and overclock. Someone has managed to get it to just over 8.00 GHz under liquid nitrogen cooling. Failing that and if I had the funds, I would go with a Core i7. Personally, the FX-9xxx models are not worth the price. On Amazon UK right now, the FX-9590 is only £20 less than the i7-4770K. Totally not worth it.
amd will be always weaker then intel
"CPU-Z is not a trustworthy source. Hell, it sometimes can't even recognize one processor from another, and it can't grab details of graphics chips very well at all." I've seen it do that several times, I'll admit, such as it being unable to completely identify my i7-4770k, but the case here is whether or not AMD Cpu's are hyperthreaded. I doubt CPU-Z will be inaccurate to the point where it'll identify an AMD chip supporting Hyperthreading technology, as I've never seen it do that. "And to clear this up, the FX-8xxx processors are comprised of four modules; each module contains two cores" Yes, I already know this, but because Jett Angeles decided to make a dumbass out of himself, this was my point to begin with. The reason why I didn't mention it, however, was because I was waiting for him to spout more bullshit about how AMD chips are SOMEHOW hyperthreaded, and then I'd immediately have the chance to make fun of him by countering his deluded mindset. I've grown to LOVE messing with those who don't know their shit, man! "exactly like a Core 2 Quad architectural design, which is why the performance isn't as good as it should be" When I found this out, I was like "You know, why AMD did this is beyond me". They were shooting for the wrong hoop in terms of performance. They have yet to release something better than the 8350 that ISN'T factory overclocked, that is this so called "9590". I'd rather get a water cooler, save 130 bucks, and OC it to 5GHz. My jaw hit the floor when I saw that they had the gall to price the 9590 at 300 bucks.
comments powered by Disqus