CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4790 vs 9590

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit and Passmark

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Unlocked

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 4790 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4790  based on its .

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 4790

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 4790

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4790

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4790

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
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 PassMark (Single core) score 2,307 vs 1,725 Around 35% 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 16.51 pt/W vs 5.04 pt/W More than 3.2x better performance per watt
Significantly better performance per dollar 7.11 pt/$ vs 4.38 pt/$ More than 60% better performance per dollar
Significantly better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 7,994 vs 4,905 Around 65% 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 cinebench r10 32Bit score 31,054 vs 26,635 More than 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Marginally newer May, 2014 vs Jun, 2013 Release date 10 months later
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 4 GHz 25% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly higher clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 3.6 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4790 vs FX 9590

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 4790
31,054
FX 9590
26,635
Core i7 4790 FX 9590 @ anandtech.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

Core i7 4790
7,994
FX 9590
4,905
Core i7 4790 FX 9590 @ anandtech.com

Passmark

Core i7 4790
10,173
FX 9590
10,589
Core i7 4790 FX 9590 @ cpubenchmark.net
When it comes to gaming performance, you can see that there's really no difference between all our setups here with the exception of our AMD setup under 3DMark 11.
Core i7 4790 | by Shawn-Baker (May, 2014)

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i7 4790
2,307
FX 9590
1,725

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4790  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1150
AM3+
Is unlocked No 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

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 16.51 pt/W 5.04 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 178.75W

details

Core i7 4790  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

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 1,200 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
Intel Core i7 4790
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 5 comments.
I agree I used to buy amd because of the lower power consump and cooling with equal or decent performance at cheaper cost , now look at his!
Anything that can utilize 4 cores or less, the 4790 will obliterate it. While the 9590 edged it out in passmark, the 4790 still beat it on cinebench. Not only that, 9590 lost in performance per dollar, which is amd's only real selling point.
lol amd fanboy buthurt :p
What kind of processor is the best of them ?
So basically CPU Boss is giving the Intel the winner sticker because it performs better during single core tasks? even though the 9590 clearly performs better in pretty much every other area? /facepalm
comments powered by Disqus