CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 5930K 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

6.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 5930K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 5930K  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 5930K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 5930K

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Core i7 5930K 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 5930K.

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 5930K vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5930K
20,902
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 5930K
4,300,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5930K
21,223
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5930K
23,605
FX 9590
13,802

GeekBench

Core i7 5930K
23,605
FX 9590
13,802

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 5930K
13,647
FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,741

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 5930K  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3.5 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.7 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 11.41 pt/W 5.41 pt/W
Typical power consumption 113.75W 178.75W

details

Core i7 5930K  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 4.78 GHz 5.08 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.45 GHz 5.06 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 7,634.4 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.78 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
DDR
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 6,400 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 5930K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 19 comments.
I don't know about anyone else but I usually go with Intel despite the extra cost over the AMD equivalent simply because the extra performance I get with Intel allows me to go longer between CPU upgrades... I had been rocking an I7 950 for about 6 years without a need to upgrade it until about a month ago when I bought a Xeon x5680 for $150 off Amazon, I overclocked it to 4.5Ghz and am getting performance equal to or better than an I7 5930k at stock clocks, should keep my old X58 platform relevant for another 2 years!
I did read what you said. the amd cpu is cheaper than any cpu an intel fanboy would use for gaming. So maybe if you are going to use things that intel support and are going to do a bunch of bullshit then i guess the intel one would be better for productivity. Itll take a multiple times longer to make your money back but hey better for productivity
the 9590 has much better memory handling. And the 9590 supports way more instruction types than the 5930k.
You honestly believe that 400% the price is worth it for 110-120% the performance? The one test had single core processing only 300 points apart
If you aren't going to read what I'm writing then whats the point?
It doesn't keep up. Have you seen the benchmarks?
In my mind intel and nvidias lies are catching up with them.
and the fact is that this cheap processor keeps up with that expensive one. People buy intel processors twice the price for no reason.
pci-e lanes? Arent those handled by the motherboards? Either way you act like people who want the best are rich. Some people want the best but cant afford a custom motherboard that supports like 20 graphics cards. And basically youre saying the reason to get that processor is because of the pci e lanes. not even a rich person would spend more than 20,000 on a gaming rig. 4 titan xs in sli would get stable fps in even 8k. The 9590 is cheaper. And would be a better option for gaming.
Whilst the enthusiast i7s have more PCI-e lanes available for multiple graphics cards, you wouldn't necessarily use this i7 for gaming, there aren't that many games that would utilise all the cores and for that the consumer grade 4 core i5 and i7 are more appropriate (and a lot cheaper) especially the socket 1151 range that has more PCI-e bandwidth available now. The majority of gamers buying the enthusiast chips are just that, enthusiasts, and want to get the best.
Well Im talking about gaming. Sure for productivity but what about average consumers?
"The processor runs at about 6 to 37 Celsius" i think your motherboard monitoring is faulty. "The processor can be overclocked easily however there are few stable overclocks.That is the problem." not easy then is it?. Typical amd fanboy post. Stop trying to justify your cheap ass purchase and face facts instead of making them up.
It might cost more for the initial outlay but the savings in productivity over product lifetime far outweigh the original costs
As for the CPU thing.I am gonna ignore that because it was not clear what the hell they are talking about.However you are saying from what i can translate that you need high cooling for the FX 9590.I do not believe this is correct.The processor can be overclocked easily however there are few stable overclocks.That is the problem.The processor runs at about 6 to 37 Celsius.About 100 Fahrenheit.In games it will primarily lay about 20c. i3 and the whole has well design is horrible.They all run at high temperatures an perform poorly.I have tested them against my FX 9370.So whoever told you that lied.Their performance sutters an freezes during even the most easy of mulit performance test.4 programs can lock up a i3 and most i5s.i7s lock at 26 programs.That is from only as high as the i7 4770K which i last tested.FX 4000s lock at 39 FX 6000s Lock at 87 FX 9370 which i am using i have yet to find the lock of max programs run at one time.So An even doing this the highest temps were still around 60 to 78.They can cap 90c.Then the motherboard will emergency shut down.If safety is engaged.
fx 9590 has 8 processing cores, not central processing unit (CPU). Get your things str8 m8. FX 9590 has a boost clock of 5.0, you can't really overclock it more than that without having some sort of ln2 or crazy custom H20 loop and it's a overclock 9590 sold in a higher price, it's pretty stupid. l3 cache is pretty important btw as I know. Especially for games or application that is pretty cache heavy. Hyperthreading does improve performance by increasing the efficiency of the cores. An i3 (dual core) will have hyper threading. It makes the cores more efficiently utilized making it seemed as having 4 threads/virtual cores. 9590 will almost completely lose to i7 5930K. The only good thing about it is that it has octa cores. But still, i7 5930K's strong hexa core will go head to head or will beat 9590. Please don't fanboy in the extent where you are really ignorant and "full of garbage."
In any case why would you get the i7? its like 700 dollars and the 9590 is like 350... its twice the price for like 125% the performance. and nobody has said anything about the i7s single core performance
Why are the passmark non overclocked weird compared to the overclocked ones??? it says the i7 has a 3,000 point lower score than the 9590. and look at the memory bandwidth doesnt that affect performance???
lol warsun your not very bright when it comes to cpu technology are ya? Intel BLOWS amd OUT OF THE WATER IN EVERY performance aspect, power consumption and manufacturing process. "Ghz" or clock speed DOES not mean better anymore its all about architecture. lol low end i7 blows FX 9590 away in every aspect almost. its not one sided its just plain facts! so don't post dumbfounded comments unless you know what your talking about.
This is the most blatant one sided review i have ever seen.First off this review is implying that the FX 9590 does not perform as well as the i7 5930K.Has it broken a world record in performance?NO! But this ranks it at a 7.9 which.If you cant brake 5GHZ then you a 10.0 There is no other more powerful.All the others must come under it.Hyper threading is not a improvement to performance on anything over a dual core.Adding this to a 4 core does not increase performance.An it should not be show as something that improves performance. The L3 cache per core is complete garbage because they are not separated.L3 is L3.That is a flat out lie. it states Max CPUs as 1.What does that imply?That there is only one central processing unit?That is stupid.I know what the FX chip has 8 Central processing Units.Is there something your not telling us? Your overclocking sucks an your full of garbage.There is no way i believe you.If you could only get 14KHz from Overclocking the FX 9590.You are a liar.An your review fails.The amount of Power it uses is not exactly correct.It shows the max TDP.Not wattage.Max wattage can be near 390 watts on both processors.So do not be mislead on that.
comments powered by Disqus