CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 5820K 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

5.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 5820K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 5820K  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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 5820K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 5820K

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Core i7 5820K 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 5820K.

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 5820K vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5820K
19,546
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 5820K
4,050,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5820K
20,764
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5820K
22,725
FX 9590
13,802

GeekBench

Core i7 5820K
22,725
FX 9590
13,802

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 5820K
12,995
FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,741

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 5820K  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Hexa 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

power consumption

TDP 140W 220W
Annual home energy cost 33.73 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 122.64 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 10.79 pt/W 5.39 pt/W
Typical power consumption 113.75W 178.75W

details

Core i7 5820K  vs
FX 9590 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
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

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.35 GHz 5.08 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.51 GHz 5.06 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 5,572.2 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.35 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
DDR3-1866
DDR4-1333
DDR4-1600
DDR4-2133
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Intel Core i7 5820K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 3 comments.
This is complete BS as of november 2015. I recently upgraded from a 9370 @ 5ghz and even at the standard clock of 3.3 ghz the 5820k blows away the fx series even at 5ghz. I got my 5820k to 4.5 ghz easily and it outperforms a 4790k at the same frequency. Another thing that makes the 5820k far better than the 9590 and any fx processor oc'd to 5ghz is ddr4 ram and pcix x16 version 3.0. With this I went from a computer that had a hard time maintaining 60 fps @ ultra in witcher 3 while only using 60-70% of my 2 770s in sli to a near constant 90 fps at 1080p with each card finally being fully utilized. Not to mention a fx 9590 was only getting an average of 3-4 fps more in fallout 4 at ultra than a i3 @ 3.2 ghz, and the i3 maintained better minimum fps than the 9590, which is quite sad. In a benchmark done for fallout 4, the 9590 averaged ~65-70fps max with a 980ti, the 5820k at stock clocks was doing ~120fps at stock clocks with a 5820k, and at 4.5ghz which most can hit easily, you should see as much as 150+. FX series is crap, stay away from it and if you love AMD which I did for a very long time, just wait til Zen comes out and see if it can live up to what was promised. Also wanted to note I picked up a 5820k 1 week before black friday 2015 and got it for 299 at microcenter. Thats cheaper than the 340 bucks USD the 4790k goes for, and you get 12 threads instead of 8 which will last you much longer, especially since games are finally going 64bit and using more threads.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-9590
4790k or 9590 amd ? which one is better?
comments powered by Disqus