CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4940MX vs 9590 among all CPUs

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

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

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?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 4940MX 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4940MX  based on its single-core performance and 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 4940MX

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4940MX

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 32.86 pt/W vs 5.41 pt/W More than 6x better performance per watt
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 46.31W vs 178.75W 3.9x lower typical power consumption
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Better geekbench 3 single core score 3,741 vs 2,549 More than 45% better geekbench 3 single core score
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.73 $/year vs 53 $/year 3.9x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 49.93 $/year vs 192.72 $/year 3.9x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jan, 2014 vs Jul, 2013 Release date 5 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 clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 3.1 GHz More than 50% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz vs 4 GHz 25% higher turbo clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 7.04 pt/$ vs 2.5 pt/$ More than 2.8x better performance per dollar
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4940MX vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

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 4940MX
4,740,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,741

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4940MX  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.1 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 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
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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i7 4940MX  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

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 400 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,350 MHz N/A

power consumption

TDP 57W 220W
Annual home energy cost 13.73 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 49.93 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 32.86 pt/W 5.41 pt/W
Typical power consumption 46.31W 178.75W
Intel Core i7 4940MX
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 4 comments.
WHAT THAT FACK '?????¡¿¿'''?????
Umm, I hate to correct you anonymous, but the AMD FX 9590 doesn't have any GPU cores. That's what the FX series is all about. It's a strict CPU, not an APU as AMD likes to call the combo chips
I forget this one. AMD FX 9590 is also using HSA technology, which mean it runs with both its CPU and GPU cores, so it will have better performance. :D I'm just giving my opinion. Peace Intel. ;)
AMD FX 9590 will actually win, because of so many reason. First, it has higher clock speed. Second, it was octa-core, not an quad-core with hyper thread. Third, it has better cache on it. And the last one, it has much better price than that 4940MX.
comments powered by Disqus