CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6700K 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

8.1

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 6700K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 6700K  based on its performance, 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

Intel Core i7 6700K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 6700K

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 73.94W vs 178.75W 2.4x lower typical power consumption
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 17,169 vs 12,725 Around 35% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 8,981 vs 4,905 Around 85% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,351 vs 1,729 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Jul, 2013 Release date over 2 years later
Higher Maximum operating temperature 64 °C vs 57 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 36,746 vs 26,635 Around 40% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year vs 192.72 $/year 2.4x lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year vs 53 $/year 2.4x lower annual home energy cost
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
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz vs 4.2 GHz Around 20% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 4 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 6.27 pt/$ vs 1.05 pt/$ Around 6x 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
Better performance per watt 5.36 pt/W vs 3.5 pt/W Around 55% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 6700K vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
17,704.5
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 6700K
6,070 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
17,169
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench

Core i7 6700K
17,169
FX 9590
13,802

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 6700K
36,746
FX 9590
26,635

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 6700K
11,117
FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,729

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 6700K  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 4 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 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

power consumption

TDP 91W 220W
Annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 3.5 pt/W 5.36 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.94W 178.75W

details

Core i7 6700K  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 14 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 57°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.65 GHz 5.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz 5.05 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.65 GHz 5.07 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3L-1600
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 6700K
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 22 comments.
Hyperthread = 30% of performance of a physical core.
Yes it can
That isn't true. I have the "volcano CPU" AMD-FX 9590 yet I can keep it cool with a Dark Rock Pro! 3 heat sink. It never goes past 50 degree's Celsius
Okay now you know that's a lie. The 9590 will kick your 3570k's behind all the time. Give credit where its due. Your i5 is good, but not that good. That i5, while having better single core performance, only has 4 cores (not hyperthreaded btw) clocked at 3.4 ghz stock. the 9590 has 8 (its really 4 modules with 2 cores per module) but the point is it has 8 threads. its going to complete all multithreaded workloads first. Gaming in DX11 will be better on the i5 because it doesn't ever really utilize more than 4 cores, and in that kind of workload where only 4 cores are used, having better single core performance is going to net better results. Here's the thing, you might be able to upgrade in the future but you're still on an outdated platform that hasn't had any new motherboards released for it in a long time. The 9590 has access to more updated motherboards. i have an asus aura am3+ mobo with usb 3.1 type a on it. Even though am3+ is outdated, at least it still has new motherboards with more modern connectivity. so while you have a better upgrade path along your generation of processors that you went with, the am3+ platform especially with a 9590, or even an 8350, will still hold up for a longer amount of time, especially in gaming since they are starting to utilize multiple cores in DX12 and Vulkan which means less overall money spent in the long run before you want to upgrade in generation of hardware. i have a 6350. while i do plan on upgrading to zen when it comes out, its still a viable processor. its not as fast as your i5 but it comes close. i plan on giving it to a friend once i do and I'm sure it wont be disappointing. its still snappy and i haven't had a single bit of lag while using it. and it sits at a nice and cool 52C at full load underneath the wraith cooler it came with. Just like yours, the fx line may be old, but it is by no means bad especially for the price.
It's possible if you have Noctua's NH-D14 or D15, also a few other dual-tower coolers like Phanteks can get away with it too. It's just what some people prefer over water
Hyperthreading makes the 6700k have as many cores as the 9590 does and at the same performance because even AMD's processors have shared cache for every 2 cores, which limits speed a lot.
hehe it took you long enough to realise that. I was a AMD fanboy myself since 2003, that is when i have built my first pc with an Amd Duron, Aopen motherboard, 256 mb of ram and Nvidia 440 mx with 64 mb of vram. And yes the year i said goodbye to AMD was 2013. I went to Intel i5 3570k and it's still beats FX9590 :D That's well invested money.
A funny and unfair comparison, have your opinion.
As someone who's spent a year with the FX-9590 and a week with the i7-6700k: -The 6700k runs hotter (celcius), idling at 23 degrees@11watts, prime95 65 degrees@60watts with stock clock & hyperthreading -> FX9590 idling 15 degrees@30watts prime95 52 degrees 160watts@5ghz. I use a pure copper 12mm thick waterblock, 2 radiators 2 pumps and a reservoir. So cooling is not an issue for both systems. To reach best potential I can't see how either systems survive without watercooling, I've never tried air cooling. -CS:GO with an i7 6700k I see the FPS counter jitter at 200fps-500fps -> FX9590 150-300fps Fraps maintains 120-140fps with i7 6700k | FX9590 70-120fps with jitterbug. -Blade & Soul in soulstone plains with ~30-40 players in one spot I get 20-120fps i7 6700k, 10-60fps with a 9590. A terribly optimized game to begin with. -Video rendering Adobe Premiere pro the i7 6700k is 2 minutes faster in rendering a video compared to an FX9590 -Adobe photoshop doesn't seem to use all 8 "cores" on either but the Intel i7 definitely feels faster. -Long term you will definitely pay more money through electricity bills from an FX9590 that will balance out with an i7 6700k. i7 6700k > FX9590 As an AMD Fanboy, I will admit the i7 6700k is better overall. Not every application will use 8 cores but most applications will use 1-4 cores in which windows is capable to switch between using 4 physical cores and 8 logical "hyperthreading" cores. I was an AMD enthusiast since the Phenom ii 1090t, going to the 4350 -> 6300 -> 8350 -> 9590. Goodbye AMD... for now :<
hahahah!
Yea ur right
There's the GeekBench 3 (Multi-core). The 6700k is clearly better, but it's newer and quite expensive. I'm waiting for Zen tho :-)
but only problem is that u always need liquid cooling for the AMD, or u will wait to see liquid plastic. On Liquid Helium, amd reaches 8.4 GHz.
And AMD CPUs support more features than Intel's.
if any
Basically all FX processors are known for their number of cores and their clock speeds and most importantly their overclocking capabilities. That is something being ignored here.
The FX 9590 can't run on air at all...
I believe this comparison is unfair as there are no benchmarks for multi-core performance - only single core. It is well known that AMD processors are usually best with multi-core performance whilst Intel processors are usually best at single-core performance, so comparing with only single-core benchmarks possibly optimises the results in Intel's favour.
you can use the Noctua NH-D14 for it or the silverstone silverarrow.
But why would you want to run it on air when the stock cooler is a water cooler?
The FX 9590 is more of a lie. 5GHz on AIR? My balls..
The 6700k gets to 4.8GHZ on AIR. As often, this is just a lie.
comments powered by Disqus