CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4790K vs 9590 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

9.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 4790K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4790K  based on its power consumption.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4790K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4790K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 71.5W vs 178.75W 2.5x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 53 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year vs 192.72 $/year 2.5x lower annual commercial 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
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.08 GHz vs 4.64 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per dollar 7.27 pt/$ vs 3.69 pt/$ More than 95% better performance per dollar
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 4790K vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
15,490
FX 9590
13,818

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,549

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
5,140,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
15,465
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4790K
16,653
FX 9590
13,802

GeekBench

Core i7 4790K
16,653
FX 9590
13,802

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 4790K
11,197
FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,735

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4790K  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

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 88W 220W
Annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 11.39 pt/W 5.37 pt/W
Typical power consumption 71.5W 178.75W

details

Core i7 4790K  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
Operating temperature Unknown - 74.04°C Unknown - 57°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.64 GHz 5.08 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.8 GHz 5.04 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 6,925.3 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.64 GHz 5.08 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
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 4790K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
...Also in Windows 8.1 x64 AMD is better :)
The 9590 at stock 4.7Ghz is slightly faster than a 4790k in multi-threading, but much slower (about 35% slower) in single threading. AMD FX hardware is meant for software 10 years from now due to gambling that single threads and core would be a thing of the past. The 9590 is actually a quad core with 2 threads similar to the 4790. (The term "Hyper-Threading" is an Intel trademark and cannot be used to compare by AMD). However Ryzen will fix these issues in the future.
I think all AMD's CPUs are beaten in single core tests, because of their design : in L1 cache (the fastest cache) each core is atributed 16 kb of data cache / core, unlike Intel's which is double 32 kb / core. So the data comes in each core can reach 5 Ghz, so it finishes a little faster then the 4 Ghz in intel (it might not need the extra chache), but when it doesn't, then the all the caches (all the leves), come into play (they are essentially kind of personal RAM for the CPU, in leves of speed, and the leves also mean the get used in priority: so level 1 is used all the time, level 2 might be used 50-70 % of the time, level 3 might be used, only on demanding (and mostly multi threaded apps), so probably 20-30% of the time). In my opinion, that's the secret for fast CPU in single thread (but from there in extends in some degree to multy-core and multy-threads workloads). What do you think ? am i missing something? I am looking to put together a second hand PC (better than my old Q6600), to do some video and photo editing (for now i have bumpted up (a little) my old CPU, with an Nvidia GTX 750 ti, and it helps in processing my material, but i was searching for 2 or 3 gen of i7 (being an intel fan for 10 years, and everybody sais they are the best at everything), but for me the prices are realy high, even second hand (especialy from 4 gen and up). Then somebody pointed this AMD CPU, and that it will be great for my tasks, and at half the price (from a i7 4 or 5 gen). Anyone knows if this AMD is good for video processing (or as good as the competition). Although my Q6600 has a max temp of 100 C (and in my PC with stock cooler, and a little bumpted (from 2,4 Ghz to 2,8 Ghz), stays at 60 C min and about 85-90 C max), i am scared of the max temp of the AMD (and especialy of around 180-220 W consumption). [sorry for my english, is not my first language, i am from Europe, Romania)
you can NOT take the testing above for real, for the final score fx 9590 got 5.6 points and the intel i7 9.3 points, to get that score you have to multipli all the difrent scores and divide it with numbers of point tasks, there is just one problem, the fx 9590 does not have built in vga with that i mean graphics so in one of the tasks the fx only get 0.0 points, and if we talk math in this setup a single score with 0.0 points will lower the final score extremly
The quad core actually IS more powerful than that crappy 8-core CPU AMD makes. They really need to make better CPU's. Lol. They're getting outperformed with their graphics cards too nowadays.
The processor here were tamper so, do you really think that a 4 core were more powerfull that 8 core ? Do you realize ? Be smart.
I never speak about FX 9XXX series, that is a massive fail from AMD, Im speaking about the low end market were the gap in performance and TDPs are low, but in price is big. Some people here start to speak about the FX 9XXX for get the gap in power used biguer and try prove they are rigth.
7.5 KWH cost 1.125€ i cant pay a coffe and a cake by month with these -.- 13,5 € in a full year ... you do the math to prove im rigth. you will need 5 years to pay the gap betwen a FX and a I5... Im runing a I5 4460S and these CPU very good and his cost is low near a I3 cost or a FX 6300 and have a very nice performance is beter than a I3 and have the same TDP 60W I5 Quad 2.9 GHz with 3.2GHz turbo, is the rigth CPU if you acre about power vs performance... I dont speak about 9590 that is a freaking monster, very bad CPU but betwen a I3 4160 or a AMD Athlon X4 860 why not pick the athlon ? He performs near the I3 and cost half, even TDP ist a big deal...
Uuuuuhh........dude even if my washing machine consumes 1500W it is active for a couple hours a day. My PC on the other hand is turned on for nearly 10 hours a day. Out if which it is on load for ~5 hours everyday. That 50W makes a hell of a difference, your math is totally off. I will give you the difference in Watts you multiply accordingly. Now i am not going to consider the power it uses while idling. An average computer uses 500W on load. Don't believe me, look up JayzTwoCents. That would mean for those 5 hours my computer uses 2500 WH(500*5) a day. Now let's add that 50W on the processor. it will consume ((500+50)*5)W or 2750 WH a day, a whole 250WH more. In a month a computer consuming 500W consumes 75000W in a month. The PC with the 50W increment will consume 82500WH. That is a difference of 7500WH or 7.5KWH. That is not too small to be negligible. Now if your counter argument is that your computer is under load for only 1 hour or 2 hours in a day, WHY the hell do you have an i7 4790k OR FX 9590? These are processors built for heavy workloads and light workstation use. Things which they should be used for like Video Editing, Rendering and Gaming, can take HOURS to complete. You would be better off with a lower end processor. So no I don't think the discussion is ridiculous. That real world enough for you bub?
The 9590 with a sufficient CPU cooler (A LEPA liquid cooler setup for example) allows you to unlock the potential of this chip. They screwed up nothing with this chip, it's the self-declared tech geniuses who don't understand how to properly handle a processor of this architecture and design in a way that unleashes everything it is truly capable of. An overclocked 8530 is extremely nice. A 9590 with someone who knows how the CPU works is basically in control of a nuclear reactor. Calling it a furnace just shows that while knowing it radiates an exorbitant amount of heat, you still didn't react accordingly and ultimately failed in whatever you were showcasing it for. Your fault is not the processors, but this community will leap to your side for screwing up a piece of hardware that some people can use to its full potential, while you simply cannot. Almost makes me want to see your response, but I will never look at this article or its comments again. So here's your preemptive win, internet hero
You made me wonder how stronk is your Portuguese game bruh :D Anyway at this price point its better and even cheaper in some cases to get an unlocked i5 with z97 motherboard (or even skylake z170) coz mobos for FX 9XXX are around 150$/Euros and only Sabertooth FX990 rev2 and AsRock Fatality FX990 support these 220W TDP cpus.
I don't care about Portugal. You're making one country representing the whole world? What real world BS is that? Also, what about cost for cooling? And you may be right about it not saving much but when it comes to performance against the two, their difference is very noticeable. Oh, and another thing, saving power and good performance also plays a big role in mobile computing. More battery life anyone? PS. Your English sucks.
Dont work in real world ? so tell me why Portugal were gasoline pay more taxes than diesel, and that make a 0,30€ diference by liter, moust people run diesel cars? Is near the only contry in europe with more diesel than gasoline cars.... Even I change my old gasoline car by a diesel one, if I make 60km by day that saves me more than 350€ year, + or - 30€ month, near the same you pay for month in one electricity bill here, the average user spend 35 ~40 € month in electricity in Portugal... You think a CPU is more important than a fridge? For real ? He runs 24H day for YEARS .... this consumption does not matter? OMG HOLY IGNORANCE .... A PC runs for 4 /8 H day ... And not every day... Why people use solar heating? Becose they save a LOT of money. You need one rom full of Intel PCs to save money on 4 digit range like solar heatingSolution does... Do the math men ... 0.15€ KWH you know IM TALKING IN KILOWATTS ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0
These benchmarks are total BS! Who the hell uses integrated graphics and sad single core programmes these days? Oh and the price of the 9590 has come right down, below £150, FFS update this site!
A) most likely the the API. B) Intel, Nvidia, and AMD are all notorious for paying off/bribing developers to make hardware work better for their stuff. AMD doesn't hate any of them, but it's what competitors do. 2-3 Gens ago Intel gave a shit ton of money to developers to work better for single thread over multi-thread because they knew that AMD was going the multi-core route. C) Well, the 8320 in factory oced form is the 9370 while the same with the 8350 = 9590. So, you're comparing 2-3 generations old, now, CPUs to 1-3 generations newer HW. The only newer crap they've launched was A-series APUs and Opterons. D) Again, AMD doesn't have the money for R&D. The only thing really coming out worth while for AMD is going to be Zen with a brand new socket. You can really only fairly compare the AM3+ sockets up to the 3xxx line of Intels. Maybe the newer opterons can be fairly compared to the 4-6xxx intels. The only major improvement from APUs they've done that's out or different older sockets is the 860k Athlon II from the Kaveri platform. And, even that isn't anything to brag about. From what I've seen there is an opteron from the 6th generation of opterons that performs around the same as the 4790k in gaming. That would be the AMD Opteron 6386 SE. Oh, and the CPU/GPU boss sites are shit sources while being highly biased. They're clearly Nvidia and Intel fanboys. If an AMD beats either their response to it winning is, "Not enough information."
And people still pay a lot for electricity. And that's a fact not written on the Internet. People spending a lot on cars and washing machines doesn't mean they don't want to save what they can save. Your argument doesn't apply to the real world. Try again.
Sorry, I can't make out what you are trying to say most of the time. So tell me if I get anything wrong. First of all, what's "SO" that you've been saying? Second, "they launch the hardware before the software can use it"? Well of course! Why don't we take a time machine where AMD launches the hardware with the appropriate software? We don't really give two cents of why it doesn't work when there's something else that works out there. It's its own fault if it doesn't work. Third, "something something blah blah compare 2nd Gen i3 and i5 vs FX CPU..." What a fair comparison. Why don't we take Athlon XP and compare it with i7 6th Gen Extreme edition? What? Is the time frame too far apart? Awwww. Lastly, what's wrong with creating 3 sockets in the same generation? Granted we spend more for some stuff and there's compatibility issues but it's probably marketing anyway. Intel is a company, they make a living off our money through their product offers. If AMD can't make their products into the market then they or you really can't complain how many sockets there are. If it becomes too many then customer will complain and might see a light with AMD, just not now and that means 3 sockets are still tolerable.
The SO is not ready for multitrading only now with w10 and DX12 we can see the real power of multicore. If the moust of the workload is in core 1 the CPU with a beter single core will win , becose the hole SO cant handle so many cores. AMD only fail becose they launch the hardware before software can use it. Intel see that software troble and burst single core speed for give the idea that one I3 is beter than a FX 6300, and the AM3 platform fail for markting ... If you compare one FX CPU with a 2º gen Core I3 or I5 in DX12 they will fail miserably vs FX CPU back then AMD with good sales can create a new platform like intel did. Intel need to create 3 sockets to burst single core speed -.- i always buy intel but these gen create 1156 , 1155 , 1150 in the game gen ... i never see that before, 775 hold all DDR 2 gen from pentium 4 to dual core, core 2 dou and core 2 quad... people ho buy 1156 I5 need to buy ney boards and CPUs at once in every upgrade ... https://www.facebook.com/pcfacts1/photos/a.750973988364940.1073741829.719487178180288/799696643492674/?type=3
AMD FX-9590 is best than Intel i7 Extreme edition but AMD weakness is in TDP 220 Watt!!!! Not efficient
With hyperthreading you'll see performance in multiple tasks, media while gaming, really both CPUs are far different then one another through AMD has been going with cores for price when in reality you easily see price differences. This is a really bias forum if you ask me, its correct on many levels however, CPUs are made for different tasks, and AMD is more affordable, although a requirement for 9590 is water cooling. In my book both are good both havent let me down, in the long run anything can be beefed with liquid nitrogen, some helium and a custom heatsink. like comparing GPUs from different competitors, nvidias cuda technology with ATI ability to read hashes. You will see people being dicks about most different CPUs because they are die hard fans of "that brand", in my case, I dont really care as long as it does what I want it to do, and that would be making me a sandwich. in any case it wont matter because quantum processors are right around the corner.
Doesn't change the fact that it still loses in multi-core performance benchmarks. lol
You are misinformed for sure, AMD have real 8 physical Cores in modules with 2 cores each, they share resorces like ALU and cache, because it is unlikely that the two colors have to use the same resource at the same time. Hyperthreading works by taking the resources of a single core and running two threads through it, and each thread takes a significant hit to performance compared to if they were executed on separate cores. http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discussion_amds_module_architecture_the_fx_8350/ http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/2
Some People talk about TDP and confuse with energy consumption.... TDP means the CPU can dissipate with out fuse X Watts in heat. Hypothetically we can create a CPU with a TDP of 1000W and wen he is on 100% load only consumes 50W from the wall. That only means we can dissipate 1000W of heat, does not mean he will do. And wen people cry becose a CPU have less 20W or even 80W more TDP OMG... They use toasters with 2000W, Washing machines and dishwashers from 1500W to 3000W, and ride a SUV with a 3.0cc engine or more, and they Cry about a 50W more on his CPU .... freaks... The KWH cost 0.13 € it means 1000 W conected 1H cost 0.13 cents, it means if the AMD FX 6300 take from the wall more 50W and cost less 90€ you will need to have your money back, (0.13/1000)*50= 0.0065€, run 50W in 1H cost 0.0065€. If the CPU cost 90€ more 90/0.0065=13 846,15 , To have your 90€ back on your power bill you need to run your CPU at 100% load for 13 846,15 hours, or 576,92 days or 1.58 years non stop to have your money back. Now they realized the ridiculousness of a discussion like this?
People talk about TDP and confuse with energy consumption.... TDP means the CPU can dissipate with out fuse X Watts in heat. Hypothetically we can create a CPU with a TDP of 1000W and wen he is on 100% load only consumes 50W from the wall. That only means we can dissipate 1000W of heat, does not mean he will do. And wen people cry becose a CPU have less 20W or even 80W more TDP OMG... They use toasters with 2000W, Washing machines and dishwashers from 1500W to 3000W, and ride a SUV with a 3.0cc engine or more, and they Cry about a 50W more on his CPU .... freaks... The KWH cost 0.13 € it means 1000 W conected 1H cost 0.13 cents, it means if the AMD FX 6300 take from the wall more 50W and cost less 90€ you will need to have your money back, (0.13/1000)*50= 0.0065€, run 50W in 1H cost 0.0065€. If the CPU cost 90€ more 90/0.0065=13 846,15 , To have your 90€ back on your power bill you need to run your CPU at 100% load for 13 846,15 hours, or 576,92 days or 1.58 years non stop to have your money back. Now they realized the ridiculousness of a discussion like this?
That's a quad-core I5 CPU the 4670k and it doesn't feature hyperthreading it's not the 4790k I7.And it was tested with 8 core CPU's.So it's not fair
comments powered by Disqus