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
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
Much better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.74 vs 1.28 More than 35% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score
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 1,724 More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better performance per watt 13.43 pt/W vs 5.19 pt/W More than 2.5x better performance per watt
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 14,371 vs 12,865 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 4.49 GHz Around 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
14,371
FX 9590
12,865

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 4.49 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) 4.49 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 13.43 pt/W 5.19 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.
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.
fanboys
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 IS A SHIT YEA YEA
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.
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. Don't believe everything a piece of software tells you. My system is the perfect example of that. CPU-Z points out the wrong chipset for my laptop system. And to clear this up, the FX-8xxx processors are comprised of four modules; each module contains two cores - exactly like a Core 2 Quad architectural design, which is why the performance isn't as good as it should be - also exactly like Core 2 Quad performance is nowhere near as good as desktop Core i5 performance.
Since you mentioned "bulldozer", you're talking about an 8150 and not the 8350. Regardless, they have the same amount of physical cores, that is eight. According to these two images on CPU-Z, you're dead wrong. 8150: http://images.itreviews.com/www.itreviews.com/photos/AMD_FX-8150_CPU-Z.jpg.620x0_q85_crop_upscale.jpg 8350: http://www.videotesty.pl/m/pliki/2012/12/14/cpu-z_1__.jpeg How this whole bullshit about "Oh, AMD uses hyperthreading in their FX chips" started is just beyond me. And just for the record, I'm an Intel user, and have been for the past decade and a half, and I know hyperthreading when I see it. Saw it back when it came out for Pentium 4, but never saw it for AMD's 64 processors. So, Jett Angeles, if you're running an FX chip, let's see a screenshot of your MSINFO32, with CPU-Z showing your CPU chip to the side. Otherwise, please stop reading uneducated, biased fanboy rumors on sleazy "tech" forums and then spouting about it here.
I would much rather go with the 7850K. In the UK at least, it's £115, while the 5800K is £80. I don't think £35 is that much to pay for, if you're after an IGPU-based system that will handle a lot of modern games at very good settings. And thanks to the hUMA architecture, OpenCL applications such as Photoshop and video editing software will definitely show an improvement. Even the i7-4770K and i7-4770R struggle with gaming on their respective IGPUs. That's something an APU owner can be smug about. And I only see HSA getting more and more popular in the future.
hahahah i like this.... was an intel fan since 2012 and ride the " AMD fan bus " end of that year, a day before New years eve specifically.. Here in Philippines where we use Hydro electric nothing beats and AMD in all real life situations. I dont care about the power consumptions. LOL just me IMHO. +1 for erik>
each core can process independently from each other.
Actually no. There are 4 core units. each unit has two cpu cores.
You guys have to understand that there's no such thing as 8 physical cores. These AMD Bulldozers come in PREHYPERHREADED Hold the Windows Key and tap R. Type in MSINFO32 and you'll see 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores. This means it's HYPERTHREADED! Please look this up if you have any kind of FX CPU's!
Picked one up for $243.18 when I got the i7-4770K for $229 + 6% sales tax about six months ago. You could only get via in store pickup so I drove an hour to save $100. Not bad and oh, it came bundled with an ASUS Maximus VI Hero for $159. A bit hard to beat.... couldn't even find them used for that price.
comments powered by Disqus