Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Split Decision - AMD FX-9590 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K

Tags:
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
September 26, 2014 6:19:42 PM

I am doing a fairly substantial upgrade to my out of date gaming rig i.e. replacing everything but the case and HDDs. I am have a very tough decision which processor I want to run.

Here they are:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
On this MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

OR

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
On this MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


I looked that the specs of each CPU and they seem pretty similar. I just want a (probably more trained) look at things.

More about : split decision amd 9590 intel core 4790k

September 26, 2014 6:22:00 PM

Go with the i7 it is much more powerful. It is more energy-efficient, produces less heat, and each individual core is way more powerful. Don't rely on frequency for comparing processors - the Intel without a doubt.
m
0
l
a c 127 å Intel
September 26, 2014 6:23:40 PM

4790K is the winner hands down.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 26, 2014 6:27:02 PM

turkey3_scratch said:
Go with the i7 it is much more powerful. It is more energy-efficient, produces less heat, and each individual core is way more powerful. Don't rely on frequency for comparing processors - the Intel without a doubt.


So what kind of cooler would I need for that? I was planning on closed loop liquid for the AMD build but don't know if that is neccessary.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:28:12 PM

i7 no contest. the power draw and heat from a 9XXX FX chip can not be justified.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:34:39 PM

But the price is a hundred dollars or more difference when you buy it.
The key thing is OP's budget.

You can argue that in order to cool the fX 9590 you need water cooling which will drive up the price.
But then if you are going to buy i7 4790K, as if you are not going to invest in a expensive cooler in order to overclock.
Tell me you are going to run i7 4790K on intel stock cooler and give me the opportunity to laugh in your face.
m
1
l
September 26, 2014 6:38:44 PM

Darthutos said:
But the price is a hundred dollars or more difference when you buy it.
The key thing is OP's budget.

You can argue that in order to cool the fX 9590 you need water cooling which will drive up the price.
But then if you are going to buy i7 4790K, as if you are not going to invest in a expensive cooler in order to overclock.
Tell me you are going to run i7 4790K on intel stock cooler and give me the opportunity to laugh in your face.


theres no problem running an i7 on stock just don't overclock until you get a better cooler. the 9XXX FX ships with water coolers (now) I thought. maybe older produced ones don't.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:44:01 PM

Yes of course there is no problem running an i7 on stock.
My point was that why buy the i7 k version if you are not going to overclock? If you are going oc, then the price is still going to be up 100 dollars or more.

You are just going to spend more money for equal performance.
Math:
FX 9590 + High end cooler = 350
i7 4790K stock = 350
i7 4790K + high end cooler = 450


What is OP's budget?

Now if the question were 4790 non K, then it's another ballgame.
'
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:51:29 PM

i7 4790K with a stock cooler , but without overclocking . 4.0GHz/4.4GHz !
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:51:31 PM

Darthutos said:
Yes of course there is no problem running an i7 on stock.
My point was that why buy the i7 k version if you are not going to overclock? If you are going oc, then the price is still going to be up 100 dollars or more.

You are just going to spend more money for equal performance.
Math:
FX 9590 + High end cooler = 350
i7 4790K stock = 350
i7 4790K + high end cooler = 450


What is OP's budget?

Now if the question were 4790 non K, then it's another ballgame.
'



well he may want to OC one day, and if that day comes its just a cooler away.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 6:56:56 PM

Beezy did you see my section regarding math.

m
0
l
September 26, 2014 7:37:02 PM

Darthutos said:
Beezy did you see my section regarding math.



Yeah 100$ bucks for a cooler? you can get a Hyper 212 EVO for 25-30 bucks, so I don't know what youre talking about. No one 'needs' a high end cooler, 30$ will get you a modest overclock and still a better value than the FX 9XXX series, not to mention the power draw difference.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 7:45:23 PM

I have a 4790k with a cm hyper 212 evo and have not overclocked at all. I'll probably overclock once the cpu can't perform as well anymore. Not everyone who buys a k cpu overclocks immediately.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 7:52:40 PM

grimmjow660 said:
I have a 4790k with a cm hyper 212 evo and have not overclocked at all. I'll probably overclock once the cpu can't perform as well anymore. Not everyone who buys a k cpu overclocks immediately.


exactly, but its a GREAT idea to leave that option open, can yield huge gains and save you from future (major) upgrades.

The 9XXX series is already like an 8XXX series FX OC'd, so the headroom is diminished trying to OC that or not.
With the k version i7 you get amazing performance at stock, and the ability to overclock well beyond what an FX chip is capable of.

if it was between an i5 and FX 8 core then we could argue, but the i7 is just the better chip, and it sits in a different price class for a reason. The FX 9XXX series is a (well known) joke.
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 7:53:06 PM

4790K is the best of the two. One the reasons it that it will use less power then the AMD
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 8:33:35 PM

The AMD is 220 Watt and the Intel is 88 Watt TDP.
Now 220 - 88 = 132 Watt
132 (W) /1000 = 0.132 kW X 24(hours) = 3.168 (kWh)X 365 (days)= 1156.32
You are using 1156.32 More kWh if you use AMD.
Now you got to figure out how much you will pay more if you use AMD instead of Intel after one year.
So use 1156.32 kWh and time however much your power company charges every kWh.
For example, if we use 17.67 cents per kWh (2014 California US rate), you are using 204.32 dollars more.

Now before you all freak out, keep in mind that figure is if you run your computer 24 hours a day for a whole year using 100 percent of your CPU. Who does that? Is the Bitcoin craze still going on? Is the OP a bitcoin miner?

More likely you will only use your PC for less than that. If we use our PC 10 hours, we take the 204.32 and it becomes 85.14 dollars. (204.32/10/24) With most of us using our CPU only 80 percent load most of the time, it's going to be (85.14/.80) = 68.11. That's per year. Beside, these figures are generous.

That's if you are living in California with insane power rates. Most of the US are averaging around 12.5cents / kWh.

With the money saved by buying a cheaper AMD chip, the power bill is most likely going to catch up with your saving after 3 years or even more most likely. By which time OP and others will probably upgrade their computer anyway.

Power figures provided by http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_graphe...

Edit:
Can some people provide us with the TDP of i7 4790K after overclock please?
How much less of TDP are there really after i7 overclock?

Furthermore, if you are using only a 30 dollar cooler, how much of an overclock is there?
m
0
l
15 minutes ago

I just got an FX-9590 and an ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 motherboard to go with it, cooled with an Silverstone Argon AR03 air cooler. I closely examined available Intel options and chose the FX-9590 over Intel's i7 offerings.

Many comments online put down this chip and AMD in general because Intel has higher-performing options available, and most of those comments are completely missing one vital factor: PRICE. I got the CPU and motherboard together for $355 tax + shipping. The i7-4790K is $340 for just a CPU and no motherboard at all.

I walked away during a CPU sale special paying $220 total for the FX-9590 chip. It's faster in video compression benchmarks than EVERY desktop Intel chip EXCEPT the X-series i7 chips. It runs with or near the 4770K in almost every other benchmark, excluding some games. I haven't found benchmarks with the FX-9590 and i7-4790K against one another so I can only compare to the 4770K.

For those of you jeering at "efficiency" and praising how much faster Intel's Haswell chips can be, I wish you the best...but I'll be able to get an SSD, better RAM, or a nicer graphics card because I have $100 extra in my pocket, all while enjoying roughly the same performance. Best of all, there's no LGA socket with extremely fragile pins to void my warranty; you know, when you return a mobo and they refuse to honor your return because "user-caused CPU socket pin damage" even though it was sent back because a nearby defective power component visibly burned up.

You can have your lower performance-per-currency-unit chips and thermal efficiency; I'll take the best overall deal, thanks!
m
0
l
!