CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 4960X vs 4790K

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

4790K
10.0
Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 4960X

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4960X

Report a correction
More l3 cache 15 MB vs 8 MB Around 90% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Significantly better geekbench (64-bit) score 23,814 vs 16,656 Around 45% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better PassMark score 14,017 vs 11,303 Around 25% better PassMark score
More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 25% more l3 cache per core
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 38,327 vs 33,538 Around 15% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
More l2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
Front view of Intel 4790K

Reasons to consider the
Intel 4790K

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher turbo clock speed 4.4 GHz vs 4 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.6 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 71.5W vs 105.63W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better performance per dollar 3.95 pt/$ vs 1.28 pt/$ More than 3x better performance per dollar
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,533 vs 2,081 More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,785 vs 7,018 More than 25% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72.72 °C vs 66.8 °C Around 10% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Better performance per watt 15.25 pt/W vs 10.45 pt/W More than 45% better performance per watt
Marginally newer Apr, 2014 vs Sep, 2013 Release date 7 months later
Lower annual commercial energy cost 77.09 $/year vs 113.88 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 31.32 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4960X vs 4790K

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i7 4960X
21,435
4790K
15,653

GeekBench (64-bit)

Core i7 4960X
23,814
4790K
16,656

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 4960X
38,327
4790K
33,538
Core i7 4960X 4790K @ anandtech.com
The gains are smallest in general-application suites like PCMark 7 and larger in CPU-intensive programs like Photoshop CS6, the rendering program POV-RAY, and the 3D rendering test, Cinebench 11.5.
4790K | by PCMag (Jul, 2014)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

4790K
8,785
Core i7 4960X 4790K @ anandtech.com
In 3D rendering test Cinebench 11.5, the 3960X scored a 1.57 in the single-threaded test, compared to the 4960X's 1.67.
Core i7 4960X | by PCMag (Sep, 2013)

Passmark

Core i7 4960X
14,017
4790K
11,303

Passmark (Single Core)

4790K
2,533

Reviews Word on the street

Core i7 4960X  vs 4790K 

6.0
8.0
When we set the Core i7-4790K to the same 3.5GHz base/3.9GHz Turbo clock speeds as the Intel Core i7-4770K, it ran a full 15 degrees cooler—50 degrees Celsius, compared with 65 degrees Celsius for the Intel Core i7-4770K.
4790K

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4960X  vs
4790K 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz 4.4 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Is unlocked Yes Yes
Is hyperthreaded Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
AVX 2.0
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 4600
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,250 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 59,733.32 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 65,536 MB 32,768 MB

details

Core i7 4960X  vs
4790K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 15 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 22 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 66.8°C Unknown - 72.72°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.55 GHz 4.61 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.79 GHz 4.84 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.55 GHz 4.61 GHz

power consumption

TDP 130W 88W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 21.2 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 77.09 $/year
Performance per watt 10.45 pt/W 15.25 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 71.5W

bus

Architecture QPI FSB
Number of links 1 0
Transfer rate 5,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Core i7 4960X
Report a correction
Intel 4790K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 5 comments.
Not bias at all
I run most of the games smoothly with a clocked Q6600 and a 280x. But the old horse shows its age with the other stuff. Its 4790k or a 5920k wait for me (assuming that the 5920 will be comparable to this overpriced cpu) .
People should refuse to pay these high prices. And let Intel eat there overpriced junk. Besides the i5 is just as good as the i7 in gaming with the FX-6300 / FX-8320 / FX-8350 not far behind the i5's. You can even game with a i3 regardless of what any game says for system specs. Most game system specs are marketing anyway with only some being truthful. Just like Metal Gear rising Revengeance saying you need at'least a i5 2400 for the lowest specs LOL. And I know a few people with i3's who run the game perfect. Also Call Of Duty Ghosts is another example of system spec marketing. When they labeled that you need at'least a GTS 450 or a ATI Radeon 5870. LOL , Anyone with even low computer knowledge new that was BS! The GTS 450 was a decent GPU for a budget build, But lets face it, The ATI Radeon 5870 was 3 times the GPU the GTS 450 was. Not only was that marketing but also pure arrogance on Nvidia's part.
by the way people, i seriously believe that the 4970k HAS A WAY BETTER PERFORMANCE PER CORE but it dosent makes the comparison... this is one of the main reasons i will get the i7 4790k cuz iwant the best performance per core
So the 4790k is almost as good, if not better than intels $1000 6-core cpu. Sweet.
comments powered by Disqus