Page not found
Page not found
We couldn’t find such page: /en/cpu/core-i7-5820k-vs-core-i7-4790k%23built-in-video
Popular graphics cards comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
2060 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB
vs
Radeon RX
580
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
Popular graphics cards
GeForce RTX
4090
Radeon RX
580
Radeon RX
Vega 7
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
GeForce GTX
1650
Popular CPU comparisons
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Core i5
10400F
vs
Core i3
12100F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5500
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i3
12100F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Popular CPUs
EPYC
9654
Ryzen 5
5500U
Core i3
1115G4
Core i5
12400F
Core i5
1135G7
Ryzen 5
3600
Page not found
Page not found
We couldn’t find such page: /en/cpu/core-i7-5820k-vs-core-i7-4790k%23benchmarks
Popular graphics cards comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
2060 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB
vs
Radeon RX
580
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
Popular graphics cards
GeForce RTX
4090
Radeon RX
580
Radeon RX
Vega 7
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
GeForce GTX
1650
Popular CPU comparisons
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Core i5
10400F
vs
Core i3
12100F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5500
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i3
12100F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Popular CPUs
EPYC
9654
Ryzen 5
5500U
Core i3
1115G4
Core i5
12400F
Core i5
1135G7
Ryzen 5
3600
Intel Core i7-4790K, 4820K, 4960X, 5820K and 5960X processors
Many cores beyond four: pros and cons
Intel has been criticized for the last five to seven years for, they say, remaining on the market with virtually no competitors , she began to slow down progress — the people, they say, are hungry for cheap multi-core processors, but they are not. But the “useless” graphics core is constantly being improved and increased in size, so that it already occupies more than half of the processor — that would be just the cores instead. It is clear that such an approach is greatly simplified and skewed towards the primitive little world of the so-called. «computer enthusiasts» (fortunately, other users do not express their opinions especially, perceiving the computer as a completely ordinary household appliance), where discrete video cards ply the Bolshoi Theater , and performance is an independent fetish, for which there is a willingness to pay quite specific money.
The mass market has long lived according to completely different laws, the main of which are price, simplicity and compactness (fortunately, portable computers have long ceased to be toys, and traditional modular desktops have turned into a niche product). Therefore, integrated video is obviously better than discrete video in all cases when it does its job, and if you can buy a processor with video for $100, then this is much better than paying $75 for a processor and the same for a video card.
At the same time, it is also important that most of the processors sold as part of finished devices are dual-core — buyers do not consider it necessary to pay extra even for four cores, since they are not so useful in mass software — and then why do they need six or eight?
However, it cannot be said that Intel does not take into account the needs of particularly demanding users at all. Moreover, it doesn’t cost her much — in the server market, increasing the number of cores is quite justified, so we have already reached 18. True, at prices that are unlikely to be liked by a private person 🙂 But the latter have something to offer. In the end, six years ago, the choice of the number of cores was not particularly a question at all: the first dual-core processors appeared in mid-2005, and quad-core ones at the end of 2006, and progress stopped there for three years. The first six-core processor was introduced in early 2010, and in mid-2011, the first six-core models with non-extreme prices appeared.
This state of affairs stabilized … for the same three years, which is typical: at the end of the past, the processor acquired eight cores «for stukubaks», and six — once again fell in price by another one and a half times. Where are the claims? It’s just that quad-core models used to get cheaper a little faster 🙂 The non-extreme Core 2 Quad came out a quarter after the extreme one — and it took two quarters for the six-core Core i7 models. A few months later, the cheapest Core 2 Quad began to sell for less than $300 — and the six-core Core i7 is still ahead, because they have so far «sunk» only to $400. So this is where it really slows down. But, we repeat, most buyers still do not see the point even in four cores, and indeed: if by “many” we mean at least “two”, then the history of multi-core in terms of duration is less than a third of the entire history of x86 🙂
In general, such a precarious balance. However, processors are being released and their prices are dropping. Accordingly, it makes sense to evaluate how much the cost of acquiring «High End Desktop Processors» (as the group of devices for both versions of LGA2011 is officially called) can be justified compared to buying a top solution for a mass platform.
What are we going to do today.
Test stand configuration
| Processor | Intel Core i7-4790K | Intel Core i7-4820K | Intel Core i7-4960X | Intel Core i7-5820K | Intel Core i7-5960X |
| Core name 9001 9 | Haswell | Ivy Bridge-E | Ivy Bridge-E | Haswell-E | Haswell-E |
| Technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm | 2 2 nm | 22 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 4, 0/4.4 | 3.7/3.9 | 3.6/4.0 | 3.3/3.6 | 3.0/3.5 |
| Cores/Threads | 4/8 | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 | |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 1 28/128 | 128/128 | 192 /192 | 192/192 | 256/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 4×256 | 4×256 | 6×256 | 8×256 | |
| L3 cache, MiB | 8 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 20 |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1600 | 4×DDR3-1866 | 4×DDR3-1866 | 4×DDR4-2133 | 4×DDR4-2133 |
| TDP, W | 88 | 130 | 130 | 140 | 140 |
| Price | T-10820114 | T- 10531106 | T-10531094 | T-11008379 | T-11008382 |
There will be five processors today: an older model for LGA1150 and a pair of older/younger ones for LGA2011 and LGA2011-3.
If you approach the issue differently, then there are two quad-core processors, two six-core ones, and another eight-core processor. The «budget» solution for LGA2011 represented by 4820K, by the way, is formally even cheaper than 4790K, but in practice it can cost more — you will have to buy a video card for it. However, if you plan to buy it anyway, then this solution has not only disadvantages (lower frequency, older architecture), but also advantages (more PCIe lanes, the ability to use more memory without problems), which is why we decided to add it to the comparison .
Although the most interesting pair we have today will be 5820K and 4960X: both are six-core, but the first one is more modern and much cheaper. True, the clock frequencies are low, but the platform makes it easy to «correct» this injustice 🙂 And we need the 5960X both for comparison with its predecessor on the throne, and by itself: after all, this is formally the most powerful solution in the Intel range.
As for other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications, and its capacity of 4 GB per channel, of course, puts 4790K in initially less convenient conditions, since in the end he got a total of only 8 GB, and not 16, like the rest of the subjects. However, we considered this to be more correct than trying to equalize volumes — after all, many people purchase solutions based on LGA2011 just to install more memory. But the system drive (Toshiba THNSNh356GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) and the video card (based on the Radeon R7 260X) were the same for all subjects.
Test methodology
To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all test results in the first benchmark against the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops , and for all other computers, which is designed to make it easier for readers to compare and choose:
| Processor | Intel Core i5-3317U |
| Chipset | Intel HM77 Express |
| Memory 90 019 | 4 GB DDR3-1600 (Dual Channel) |
| Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
| Drive | SSD 128 GB Crucial M4-CT128M4SSD1 |
| Operating system | Windows 8 (64-bit) | Intel graphics driver version | 9. 18.10.3186 |
iXBT Application Benchmark 2015
Perhaps the best chart to show the benefits of multithreading, since these applications use as many processor cores as they can find. As a result, it overtook the convincing victory of 5960X — 4790K by one and a half times. True, it costs three times more, but this is a common thing: the dependence of price and performance is far from linear. Both six-cores are between them, and are approximately equal — given the different prices, this is very important. 4820K is a clear outsider — it has all the parameters worse than 4790K 🙂
What is called — arrived. How can this be? We recall the features of a multi-threaded test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1: for its normal operation, it is recommended to have at least 2 GB for each calculation thread — otherwise the test may “fall out” into single-threaded mode and start working even slower than without using the technology Multiprocessing (as Adobe calls it).
Sometimes, as we have already found out, even 1 GB per stream is enough (i.e. 8 GB for Core i7), but not when using a discrete graphics card. But 16 GB is enough for 4820K (eight threads), but not enough for six-core processors … and like death for an eight-core Core i7-5960X. How it looks in practice — let’s see in detail in the table: 9
So, without the use of Multiprocessing, everything is logical and predictable: additional cores give a performance increase, but not much, since the degree of their utilization is rather low in this mode of this application. The inclusion of Multiprocessing more than doubles the 4820K, which has enough memory, but it has a catastrophic effect in other cases. The performance of the 4790K just turns out to be the same as without this technology, the six-core ones slow down by one and a half times, and the eight-core 5960X — generally in two.
Regarding the «normal» mode — as we already know, when installing 32 GB of memory, the processor copes with this task in 268 seconds (and even then — if you look at the performance of 4820K, you can conclude that 5960X 32 GB is still not enough to fully use the mentioned technologies). And if there are only 16, it works four times slower in . Remarkably, the first test in Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1 with less memory runs opposite for 10 seconds is faster than . Conclusion? Stepping on the shaky ground of workstations and other highly specialized configurations, it should be remembered that not everything is so simple there. You won’t be full of cores alone — and the environment must be used appropriately. And the operating modes of the software used (when there is a choice) are consistent with the environment. Otherwise, instead of speeding up the work by half, you can get its slowdown. And when studying and comparing test results on different sites, you should start with studying the test methodology (those resources where it is described in insufficient detail should not be considered at all for obvious reasons :)) — otherwise there is a risk of comparing warm with soft.
Within the framework of extreme platforms — a beautiful ladder, which is greatly spoiled by the result of the Core i7-4790K: higher than everyone else. But we were quite ready for this from the very beginning — too many cores are not needed here, so the one with the best architecture and high clock speeds will win.
Beating overgrown babies 🙂 For a well-known reason — in fact, no one has remade the application since Core 2 Duo, so only two cores are needed, and the maximum frequency.
Audition is trying to use additional streams, but this can only compensate for the lag in other parameters, but nothing more.
But here it is the increase in the number of cores that is the determining factor. And (which is typical) 5820K and 4960X are approximately equal — for the second time already and again under conditions favorable for six-core processors.
Additional cores do a good job of compressing data, but for decompressing you need one maximum frequency — as a result, we get equality of tops for all three platforms and lagging behind them for younger processor models.
As we have already said, «in everyday life» of this type, one fast core is enough. Whoever has the fastest core is the fastest one. Who has the slower cores — that one is slower. And how many of those cores — it does not matter.
SSD is the same, platform controllers are approximately equal — general equality with a small spread.
Given all of the above, the average temperature in the hospital would seem to make even less sense than usual, but in general it is well shown that, in general, a spherical user in a vacuum LGA2011 in both incarnations is simply not needed.
Gaming applications
For obvious reasons, when using the Radeon R7 260X, we limit ourselves to the minimum quality mode (for maximum settings, this video card is not enough by itself), but in full Full HD resolution (with this, it, unlike many integrated solutions, does a great job). comments to the diagrams will be one for all.
The only result out of line is in Grid2. As you can see, the game engine not only supports multi-core processors — it can definitely use up to 16 computation threads with benefit.
However, this makes no sense, since there is really no difference between 200 and 300 frames per second. Formally, there is, but in practice there is too much of the first meaning. And the lower the frame rate (primarily depending on the capabilities of the video card), the smaller the difference between the processors, even where it tries to appear: in Hitman, for example, many cores do not hurt at first glance, but if you look closely, this money is better for a more powerful video card spend, which will allow you to play not at the minimum settings. In general, a gamer should definitely limit himself to LGA1150, and not even Core i7 🙂
Total
First, as mentioned above, six to eight cores on the desktop are still not needed by the mass user. It does not follow from this that no one needs them, but you will still have to dance from tasks. And evaluate: will it pay off or not? Moreover, lowering prices for processors, generally speaking, will not change anything — the system will still be more expensive.
Why? We remember the need for a video card. Yes, gamers still use discrete GPUs, but gamers, strictly speaking, don’t need a Core i7 at all. And if we consider professional use with the corresponding video card of the professional series, then the question of whether the processor costs $300 or $1000 may cease to matter at all — since such a video card is capable of pulling several thousand. Again, within the LGA1150 there is also a Xeon with graphics cores of the HDG P4600 series and higher, capable of competing just with budget professional cards, and the “budget” in this segment is specific: in short, it’s impossible to meet $50 🙂 And on other things It’s not worth saving the environment either: an example of Adobe After Effects CC 2014.1.1, for the adequate operation of all the functions of which a system with a six- or eight-core processor will have to be equipped with 32 GB of memory, has been analyzed in detail above. By the way, taking into account this factor, the Core i7-5820K ceases to look so attractive: for 32 GB DDR4 now you have to pay almost $ 600, and the same amount of DDR3 will cost less than 300, so it will be cheaper to buy the «outdated» Core i7-4930K for a «regular» LGA2011 😉
In general, as it was said, systems based on multi-core processors are an expensive pleasure these days, and they will remain expensive even if the prices for the processors themselves go down.
But this is not so bad — the worse thing is that six to eight cores are simply not needed to solve most of the tasks facing the mass user. Strictly speaking, even four are not always needed, but there the prices for processors differ less, and the rest of the «infrastructure» is completely identical — in contrast to. Accordingly, quad-core processors are gradually turning into a mass product, at least in the segment of desktop computers (the majority of shipments on the mobile market do not yet fall on them), but further … Then there are objective difficulties, which we, in fact, were studying today. .
Price guide
September 11, 2015
Andrey Kozhemyako
News x Hyundai. Future auto companies will receive SoC Exynos Auto V920
June 7, 2023
Apple, why such a new Mac Pro? Mac Studio with the same options costs almost half as much
June 6, 2023
How much does a new top Mac Pro cost? The novelty has only a few configurations
June 6, 2023
News section >
Intel Core i7-4790K vs Intel Core i7-5820K — comparative characteristics and benchmarks of processors
VS
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-5820K
Which one to choose?
It’s time to choose the winner.
What is the difference and which is better in comparison Intel Core i7-4790K vs Intel Core i7-5820K? Which processor is more powerful and faster? It is quite simple to determine — look at the comparative table of all characteristics. A processor with more cores/threads, as well as a higher frequency and large L2-L3 is the absolute winner!
Cores, base and turbo frequency of the processor
Who will win in the comparison of Intel Core i7-4790K and Intel Core i7-5820K. The overall performance of a processor can be easily determined based on the number of cores, threads, base and turbo clock speed + L2-L3 volume. The more cores, L3, and clock speed, the more efficient the processor. Please note that high specifications require the use of a powerful cooling system.
4.00 GHz
Clock speed
3.30 GHz
4
Number of cores
6
4.40 GHz
9 0004 Turbo (1 core)
3.60 GHz
8
Threads
12
Yes
Hyper Trading
Yes
Yes
Overclocking
Yes
4.
20 GHz
Turbo (4 Cores)
no data 9 0003
no data
Turbo (6 cores)
3.40 GHz
Processor family and generation
Internal graphics
It’s hard to compare an Intel Core i7-4790K vs an Intel Core i7-5820K when graphics card function and specs matter only in laptops. In workstations, this is not an advantage, due to the installation of an additional graphics accelerator.
Intel HD Graphics 4600
GPU name
0.35 GHz
GPU frequency
1.25 GHz
GPU (Turbo)
No turbo
7.5
Generation
11.1
DirectX Version
20
Execution Units
160
Number of Shaders
2 GB
Maximum Memory
—
3
Number of monitors
22 nm
Technology
Q2/2013
Release date
Hardware codec support
Here we are dealing with specifications that are used by some processor manufacturers.
These figures are mostly technical and can be disregarded for comparative purposes.
Decode / Encode
h364
No
Decode
JPEG
No
No
h365 8bit 900 03
No
No
h365 10bit
No
No
VP8
No
No.
VP9
No.
Decode
VC-1
No.
RAM and PCIe
These are the memory standards supported by processors. The processor can support multi-channel RAM with a high clock speed, this directly affects its speed and performance.
DDR3-1600
Memory type
DDR4-2133
32 GB
Maximum memory
64 GB
2
Memory channels
4
No
ECC
No
3.0
PCIe version
3.0
16
PCIe lanes
28
Encryption
Data Encryption Support
Yes
AES-NI
Yes
Memory & AMP; PCIe
Thermal management and TDP
Today’s systems are loaded with demanding games and work applications, which consequently unleash the full potential of the processor.
When choosing between Intel Core i7-4790K and Intel Core i7-5820K, it is better to choose the option with less heat dissipation (TDP).
88 W
TDP
140 W
—
Max Temperature
—
—
Max TDP
—
—
TDP down
—
Technical details
8.00 MB
L3-Cache
15.00 MB
22 nm
Technology 9000 3
22 nm
Haswell Devils Canyon
Architecture
Haswell-E
VT- x, VT-x EPT, VT-d
Virtualization
VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d
LGA 1150
Socket (connector)
LGA 2011-3
Q2/2014
Release date
Q3/2014
ca. 310 $
Price
ca. 499 $
Devices compatible with this processor
You probably already know which devices use processors. It can be a desktop computer or a laptop.
Unknown
Used in
Unknown
Cinebench R11.
5, 64bit (Single-Core)
This synthetic benchmark will help you determine the actual processing power of a single CPU core. Cinebench R11.5 is based on MAXON CINEMA 4D and uses 9 different test scenarios0003
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
197 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
173 (87%)
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R11.5 performs simultaneous cross-platform tests on all processor cores. Running realistic 3D scenes, this benchmark will unleash the full potential of your single core Intel or AMD
processor
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.
00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
967 (87%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
1105 (100%)
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a popular software for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The iGPU test uses the processor’s internal graphics unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
334 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.
30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
Cinebench R15 (Single Core)
The latter is used to create 3D models and shapes. Cinebench R15 is used to benchmark the performance of single core processors. Hyperthreading capability is not taken into account. It is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5. Like all new versions, the updated benchmark is based on Cinema 4 Suite software
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
169 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
139 (82%)
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 can be used to test the performance of multi-core processors.
The test produces accurate and reliable results. This benchmark is an updated version of Cinebench 11.5, which is based on Cinema 4 Suite soft.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
854 (78%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
1085 (100%)
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is based on Cinema 4 Suite. This is software used to create 3D shapes. The benchmark runs in single-core mode without considering the possibility of hyper-threading.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.
00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
411 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
329 (80%)
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
This is a new version of the benchmark based on Cinebench R15 (both versions are based on Cinema 4, the most popular 3D modeling software). Cinebench R20 is used for benchmark tests of multi-core processor performance and hyper-threading capabilities.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
1982 (86%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.
30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
2301 (100%)
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a benchmark for 64-bit Intel and AMD processors. It uses a new power rating system for a single processor core. This software simulates real scenarios for accurate results
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
4302 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
3740 (86%)
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 supports multi-core AMD and Intel processors. Based on MAXON CINEMA 4D, it allows you to get the real comparative potential of the processor
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.
00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
16686 (72%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
23052 (100%)
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is the latest software. Completely new algorithms provide fairly accurate test results for single-core processors.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
1073 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
923 (86%)
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 benchmark results for memory performance and multi-core processor speed.
This takes into account the ability to hyperthreading.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
4001 (72%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
5537 (100%)
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
We use the Blender benchmark to monitor CPU performance. Test results show how fast the device performs when performing multi-processor tasks
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
4070 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.
30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
3317 (81%)
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
It tests all and general CPU performance (math calculations, compression and decompression speed, 2D&3D graphics tests). Please note that data may differ from actual situations.
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
11445 (87%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
13014 (100%)
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
This test measures the performance of integrated graphics on Intel and AMD processors.
The result is the calculated processing power in Single-Precision mode FP32
Intel Core i7-4790K
4x 4.00 GHz (4.40 GHz) HT
400 (100%)
Intel Core i7-5820K
6x 3.30 GHz (3.60 GHz) HT
Popular processor comparisons
| 1. |
Intel Core i7-3770 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
2.
|
Intel Core i7-4790K vs. Intel Core i3-9100 |
|
| 3. |
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 4. |
Intel Core i7-5775C vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 5. |
Intel Core i7-4790K vs. Intel Core i5-4670K |
|
| 6. |
Intel Core i5-10400F vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 7. |
Intel Core i7-4770K vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 8. |
Intel Core i5-4570 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 9. |
Intel Core i7-4790 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 10. |
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
eleven.
|
Intel Core i5-4670 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 12. |
Intel Core i7-4790K vs. Intel Core i5-4460 |
|
13.
|
Intel Core i5-4440 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K |
|
| 14. |
Intel Core i7-4790K vs. Intel Core i7-7700K |
|
15.
|