CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4960X vs 9590 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)


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


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more


CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Intel Core i7 4960X 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4960X  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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 4960X

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4960X

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Core i7 4960X vs the AMD FX 9590.

Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD FX 9590 vs the Intel Core i7 4960X.

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4960X vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4960X
FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4960X
2,560,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4960X
FX 9590

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4960X
FX 9590


Core i7 4960X
FX 9590

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 4960X
FX 9590

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i7 4960X  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Hexa core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 220W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 7.86 pt/W 5.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 178.75W


Core i7 4960X  vs
FX 9590 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L2 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 15 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.8°C Unknown - 57°C


Overclocked clock speed 4.5 GHz 5.08 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.32 GHz 5.06 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.5 GHz 5.08 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 59,733.32 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 4960X
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 19 comments.
Comparison of the 6 core 12 thread i7-4960X versus 8 core 8 thread FX-9590 virtually not difference when placed under same GPU testing conditions. The attached link documents test comparison with two graphic cards; single Radeon R9 290X and dual Radeon 5990. A number of commercial video testing software packages were applied under same conditions for both the i7-4960X and the FX-9590 CPU's. As you will note from the test results the differences in frames per second was typically single or couple of frames/second, which is not noticeable to video users during operation, and perhaps within the margin of software error and tolerances during testing. Very impressive results when comparing the two processors under same conditions. The tests demonstrates that both chip sets perform outstanding under multi-threading applications with essentially no difference in performance with GPU applications. The link location is as follows: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960. July 2015
Not to long ago there was a benchmark study of AMD versus Intel ultimate gaming showdown FX-9590 versus i7-4960X with essential identical components setup, and two high end video cards; Radeon R9 290 X single configuration and HD 7990 with dual configuration. Each CPU was tested under various benchmarks and video game types and formats. As test demonstrated the difference between the video and CPU type configurations was not significant to justify a clear winner; small frame differences in the video gaming tests is not noticeable by the user in real applications. As such the i7 considering equivalent system, is $1000.00 - 1500.00 USD more than the equivalent AMD system. the AMD FX-9590 is clearly better value. Attached is article and test comparison for reference. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x/3 July 2015
the i7 extreme series are also great for gaming tho. I know people will argue but my i7 3960x actually beat out the i5 2500k and i7 2700k in certain games. I did benchmark runs on metro and other games back in the day vs my friends i5 2500k and my other friends i7 2700k. I know this is the older gens but i beat em in a good few cases and never really lost by much more than maybe 2-3fps. I got a really great chip tho. Running 5ghz @ 1.41 v.core on water. Amazing temps and amazing performance on every computer need possible. I am so happy i went with the extreme edition of intel. I have yet to see anything out there worth the money that has much of a performance boost over what i have. What i am saying is if your sitting on old cpu hardware, get your self either an i7 xx30k or i7 xx60x and you will be good for 3-5 years of never even having to think about needing more power. Hell maybe longer all i know is thats how long i have owned this bad boy and am still waiting for either cpu vendors to release something that is worth and upgrade. I will prob upgrade when the next big thing hits. Like sata 4 or a better pci-e solution. DDR4 just wasn't worth a 1500-2000$ dollar spending spree. Yea if your on a budget get amd hands down they are great performance for the dollar but if you want the overall best performance available on the market your going to have to drop the bones on intel.
12 threads != 12 cores. You should, at best, consider 6 cores with hyperthreading to be roughly the same as 9 cores (1.5 cores per 2 threads), if you're generous. The multithreading benchmark above agree that 12 threads is no the same as 12 cores, by far.
Nobody uses the same CPU for 4 years for work, which means there is no saving on the CPU. You also have to consider the total cost of the system, not just the CPU -- AM3+ motherboards are a lot cheaper than LGA2011 motherboards. Most of the benchmarks really don't matter -- 32 bit is a thing of the 1980s which was carried into the 1990s for no good reason; virtually every other major CPU architecture had a 64 bit implementation in the 90's, except x86. Having said that, the i7 is a faster processor than the fx. If you're using this for work, get a bunch of cheap systems and connect them with gigabit ethernet, which means avoid both processors since the pt/$ as well as pt/W is outmatch, by far, by other processors, especially if you've got access to the source and have a bunch of parallelas.
Ahhh...no it's not! 4.7 On the AMD and 3.6 on the Intel... plus the AMD has 8 cores instead of 6.
que doença ..
The intel chip new just looked it up around the web, $875 at the cheapest. 950 average.. ill think anyone will pass on the 64% increase of price, for gains where money could be used on a GPU. As for the debate on heat, out of the builds i have built, using the same cooler for both intel and amd, I can say literally the temps i have see are pretty much the same (this includes an E8400, Q8500, i3 2350 and an AMD Athlon, x4, phenom x4. pretty much 32 idle and 55-60 load. my current setup runs the same temps but uses a better cooler. Also since my setup runs faster then intel chips in the same price range, just more money on graphics. a correction, you clock the hell out of AMD they dont do it for you already. As for the 9590 it has watercooling for a reason, it is insanely hot. please do keep in mind all current gen games systems run AMD (i wonder why) they wouldn't go and buy faulty products for their customers just to return them (or would they)..... AMD does not look better, they are just more budget friendly, I have my gaming rig for the family with AMD FX-6350, and my Professional rig has an i7 at work. Intel beats AMD hands down, but not on pricing, if we all had the money then i7 4960X would be the best seller. haha stop being a fanboy and bashing AMD and look at the wider picture. AMD= more power, more heat, overclocks amazingly, better price preformance, and best for budget gaming. Intel = less heat, less power, overclocking not so great, much more expensive, and best for productivity.
I found the i7-4960x for $799 brand new... stop lying. It's funny how all these people bash Intel but they are crazy for Apple who supports Intel. They say Apple is so 'high tech' and 'innovative' and that they're 'quality' and Apple supports Intel not AMD but then they go and bash Intel. Intel is still better even if it's $500 more because they ALWAYS run cooler and using less energy. The energy bill alone over a few years will save you that but more importantly is the time you will save in productivity. AMD 'looks' better because they overclock the hell out of it and its runs much hotter and uses more power. It's not just all face numbers, think about other factors.
The Intel is still better... you can still overclock the i7 you know. But as is it's still faster than the AMD. Around $400 more but it also uses tons less energy according this site. Saving almost $80-100/year on energy bills alone... then you consider the time you save from getting things done faster and the $100/300/500 you save depending on how long you have it on energy and it's at least equal if not better. Again don't get this for Facebook and gaming... it's meant for work and it does what it's supposed to using less resources, of course it's going to be more expensive.
yea because that's all people do is games.
Well you DO know the 9590 is just an overclocked 8320 (8320 is 140$) and you DO know that a 6 core intel would be equal to a 12 core amd...
Intel i7 4960x 1715$ - 311$ AMD Fx-9590, 1400$ amd more cheap, are you kidding me? best amd for the price
I choose the FX 8350 or i7-4790K because the FX8 performs a few percent better after overclocking to 5GHz plus, I am using a liquid cooler already. If I am getting the devil's canyon it would outperform any AMD processors (except for Opterons which I don't care for much.)
among intel i7 4960x and amd fx9590 i chooses amd because amd cost 1/3 of intel and performs good
exactly! "games" It really comes down to application. I do a lot of editing and rendering. The i7 is more suitable.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x there's a difference between the two processors, definitely, but what you'll actually notice while playing games and putting the processors under a heavy load is very small. It's not nearly worth the extra $600 for a 5-15% increase in performance on demanding games.
i7-4960X is beast.
comments powered by Disqus