Review Index:

The Intel Core i7-4790K - Devil's Canyon Review and Overclocking

Author: Ryan Shrout
Subject: Processors
Manufacturer: Intel

Testing Setup and SiSoft Sandra

Test System Setup
CPU Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-4960X
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i7-4670 (simulated)
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-3570 (simulated)
Intel Core i7-3970X
Intel Core i7-3820
Intel Core i7-2600K
AMD FX-8350
Motherboard ASUS Z97-Deluxe (Haswell, 4790K)
Intel DZ87KLT-75K (Haswell)
Intel DX79SR (Ivy Bridge-E, Sandy Bridge-E)
ASUS 990FX (Vishera)
Memory 8GB DDR3-1600
Storage Corsair Force GT 120 SSD
Sound Card On-board
Graphics Card AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB
Graphics Drivers Catalyst 13.4 (AMD)
Power Supply Corsair Professional AX1000 watt
Operating System Windows 8 Pro x64

View Full Size

SiSoft Sandra 2013 SP3a

The latest version of SiSoft Sandra offers up a lot of new features including GPU performance, OpenCL, etc. 

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

Raw CPU performance scales by about 7-8% in our SiSoft Sandra results, though we see more modest gains in Multimedia and Memory Bandwidth. In light of the 13% clock speed advantage (if Turbo works as well as expected), that is a bit lower than I would have hoped.

June 7, 2014 | 01:35 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"It's not "budget" but most people's standards but getting this kind of performance with a $339 CPU helps everyone and Intel's good will gesture to the community at least indicates that the lack of competition on the high-end of the market isn't totally damning us all."

There is something wrong with this sentence.

June 7, 2014 | 10:07 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Fixed the typo, thanks!

June 7, 2014 | 01:45 AM - Posted by JxcelDolghmQ (not verified)

Thanks for the review. Decent pricing, for an Intel part, but they do not seem to be binning these chips for overclocking like some people were hoping or expecting. Funny to see the 8350 still topping the performance per dollar charts despite its age and lack of price drops. Really demonstrates the lack of progress in the higher end of late.

Couple of potential typos:
On the Test Setup page, you list the A10-5800K but it does not appear in any of the benchmarks.
In the conclusion, second to last paragraph, you write: "It's not "budget" but most people's standards", I think you meant "by most people's standards".

June 10, 2014 | 11:14 AM - Posted by Patrick P (not verified)

Eh, the performance for dollar rankings have never included the average power usage in the calculation. In reality 4690 > 8350 for perf/$ in the long run.

June 7, 2014 | 02:22 AM - Posted by renz (not verified)

so clock for clock how much improvement we are going to see from sandy bridge to this new line up?

June 7, 2014 | 02:45 AM - Posted by JxcelDolghmQ (not verified)

Same as Sandy to Haswell, IPC is not any better on these than regular Haswell.

June 7, 2014 | 10:08 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Correct, it's the exact same architecture, just higher clocks (than we have seen before) and new TIM and added caps.

July 26, 2014 | 04:39 AM - Posted by Carolyn (not verified)

Hi there, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one
and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam responses?
If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any assistance is very much

Review my web blog ... sms blast singapore - Carolyn,

June 7, 2014 | 03:17 AM - Posted by Havor (not verified)


Why do you use the X series when comparing price performance ratio's of S2011 CPUs, hell i would not even recommence a S2011 CPU for 95% of the people that buy them.

And i know my 3930K + R4E dose not have the best price performance ratio, but using 3970X and 4960X CPUs that no one in his right mind would buy over the x930K series is just muddying the waters.

June 7, 2014 | 10:09 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Well, to be honest, these are the parts we have in-house for testing.

But the comment is noted and we'll try to include more of the product range when doing future reviews. Maybe for Haswell-E, for example.

June 7, 2014 | 04:16 AM - Posted by Martin Trautvetter

I really like that Intel went with a much higher default clock on this one, not just a 100 MHz bump, and agree with your assessment that that makes the 4790K a great choice even if you never plan to overclock. 400 MHz extra for just $25 over the regular 4790? Who wouldn't buy the K?

Interesting results, though the (sometimes) stilted scaling and conspicuously higher idle power consumption look a bit odd. Hope the latter will be fixed by newer UEFIs, and is not an inherent trait of DC Haswells!

I wouldn't worry about the pricing, the 4770K will be sold off, with the 4790K replacing it at the same price soon.

Personally, I can't wait to see when (if?) Gigabyte updates my Z87's UEFI to include DC support.

June 7, 2014 | 04:51 AM - Posted by arbiter

if they don't then its gigabyte that decided to, I have an Asus Z87 board and they have bios for DC cpu out.

June 7, 2014 | 08:27 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

The K parts miss some of the virtualization features the non-Ks have..

June 8, 2014 | 07:29 AM - Posted by Martin Trautvetter

While that was true for the old Ks, VT-d and TSX-NI are enabled on the new DC Ks:,80806,75123

BTW: How cool is it that the ARK-references for the i7 Haswell refreshes could be read as "eighty-eighty-six" and "eighty-eighty-seven"? /geek-out ;)

June 8, 2014 | 04:16 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Wow that's good to know.

June 9, 2014 | 07:03 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

That is good to know! I want a i666 inside my system now!

June 7, 2014 | 05:54 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)


What would your temps on the 4770k have been had you put it at 4.7GHz (the same as the 4790k) and reduced the voltage to the bare minimum to sustain that frequency?

If the temperatures in that case would be in the 70's or 80's, which is warm but still acceptable, I really don't see the point in this product from an overclocking prospective.

June 7, 2014 | 10:10 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I would agree with that statement if my overclocking results were to be the definitive results, but it is possible that the 4770K that I got happens to be a GREAT overclocking part and the 4790K I got happens to be a poor overclocking part. There is still a lot of luck in this business.

June 7, 2014 | 03:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The point is that they cost the same, but the 4790k has better thermal properties, which is huge for overclocking. Even if it can't clock higher, it can reach the same speeds with much more stability without requiring a risky delid.

June 7, 2014 | 07:48 AM - Posted by CB (not verified)

Ryan, any chance you could tell us what the fastest stable OC you got was without a voltage bump? It'd be interesting to see that OC temp without voltage increases...

June 7, 2014 | 10:11 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The only data I have on that is at 1.2v, which is where I started overclocking testing. On that, I could hit 4.5 GHz, but no more.

June 7, 2014 | 10:47 AM - Posted by Robogeoff (not verified)

"Temperatures during load of Core i7-4970K at 4.7 GHz"

4790K or 4970K?

I would think it weird for this Haswell refresh to get a model number that's higher than my Ivy-E 4930K.

June 7, 2014 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Morry Teitelman

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out...

June 7, 2014 | 10:52 AM - Posted by polu (not verified)

Can you pls cut the IHS and see if there is a weak TIM or is it soldered as SB, pls?

June 9, 2014 | 04:40 AM - Posted by Earnest Bunbury (not verified)

YES, er... YES!

June 7, 2014 | 11:36 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Could you run tests using a z87 motherboard also? Would really like to see if there are any limitations on using the new chips with a z87 board.

June 7, 2014 | 11:51 AM - Posted by geekthem (not verified)

June 7, 2014 | 12:04 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Why am I not seeing 8core cpu for decent price yet.

fuk this shit, fuk intel, goto devil canyon hell.

June 7, 2014 | 04:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Hopefully they skip Broadwell on the PC. Can't see them releasing Broadwell this year if they're dropping a Haswell "Refresh" this late. Not to mention it's going to be a disappointment for desktops anyways.

Can't even get excited for the Haswell 8 core part being that it's only for the $1,000 model. My fricken $500 i7 3930K is an 8 core part with 2 cores disabled. No reason why they shouldn't offer an 8 core part for the $500 range either. Intel being Intel.

June 8, 2014 | 12:49 AM - Posted by Humanitarian

Lel, "[Intel]8core cpu for decent price"

Are you high?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.