4 Cores, 8 Threads
@3.5GHz Haswell (2013)

8 Cores, 8 Threads
@4.0GHz Piledriver (2012)

Real World Speed
Performance profile from 5308 user samples
2779 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 112% Base clock 4.5 GHz
Worst Bench: 3% Base clock 3.5 GHz
Worst: 3% Best: 112%
SPEED RANK: 4th / 798
Desktop 91%
Nuclear submarine
Gaming 91%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation 61%
Battle cruiser
2529 User Benchmarks
Best Bench: 81% Base clock 4.2 GHz
Worst Bench: 20% Base clock 4 GHz
Worst: 20% Best: 81%
SPEED RANK: 136th / 798
Desktop 64%
Battle cruiser
Gaming 66%
Workstation 49%
SC Mixed
Avg. Single Core Mixed Speed
113 Pts Much faster single-core speed.
77 Pts -47%
QC Mixed
Avg. Quad Core Mixed Speed
405 Pts Much faster quad-core speed.
291 Pts -39%
MC Mixed
Avg. Multi Core Mixed Speed
616 Pts Faster multi-core speed.
530 Pts -16%
SC Mixed
OC Single Core Mixed Speed
129 Pts Much faster OC single-core speed.
86.5 Pts -49%
QC Mixed
OC Quad Core Mixed Speed
481 Pts Much faster OC quad-core speed.
331 Pts -45%
MC Mixed
OC Multi Core Mixed Speed
710 Pts Faster OC multi-core speed.
607 Pts -17%
Value For Money
67 % Slightly better value.
59.6 % -12%
User Rating
UBM User Rating
65 % -9% 71 % Slightly more popular.
Price (score)
$364 -51% $180 Much cheaper.
Effective Speed
Effective CPU Speed
90.5 % Much faster effective speed.
63.6 % -42%
24 Months More recent.
29 Months -17%
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
84 Watts Much more energy efficient.
125 Watts -33%
CPU Processing Cores
4 cores -100% 8 cores Hugely higher core count.
CPU Processing Threads
8 threads 0% 8 threads 0%
Manufacturing process
22 nm Much newer manufacturing.
32 nm -31%
Base Clock
Base Clock Speed
3.5 GHz -14% 4 GHz Slightly faster base frequency.
Turbo Clock
Turbo Clock Speed
3.9 GHz -8% 4.2 GHz Slightly faster turbo frequency.
SC Int
Single Core Integer Speed
127 Pts Much faster single-core int speed.
91.9 Pts -38%
SC Float
Single Core Floating Point Speed
131 Pts Much faster single-core fp speed.
81.6 Pts -61%
QC Int
Quad Core Integer Speed
472 Pts Much faster quad-core int speed.
346 Pts -36%
QC Float
Quad Core Floating Point Speed
490 Pts Much faster quad-core fp speed.
310 Pts -58%
MC Int
Multi Core Integer Speed
640 Pts Slightly faster multi-core int speed.
598 Pts -7%
MC Float
Multi Core Floating Point Speed
741 Pts Much faster multi-core fp speed.
562 Pts -32%
CPU Architecture
Haswell (2013) Piledriver (2012)
Motherboard Socket
FCLGA1150 AM3+
Integrated Graphics
HD 4600 None

The Core i7-4770K is Intel's fourth generation (codename Haswell) flagship processor in the hugely successful Core range. It's not surprising that the 4770K sets a new Real World Performance index record, besting its predecessor by just over 9%. The 4770K also tops out in the remainder of our benchmarks setting new highs of 10020 and 2164 in the PassMark and PassMark Single Thread tests which equates to roughly an 8% overall performance increase over the 3770K. With a TDP of 84 watts, power consumption has increased slightly over the 3770K. The new Core i7-4770K demonstrates around an 8% performance increase over its predecessor the 3770K but it costs 12% more. As a result, at least until prices drop, this processor represents marginally worse value for money than the 3770K. [Jun '13 CPUPro]


In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K delivers better performance. [May '13 CPUPro]


Processor User Rankings (Charts) March 2015 CPU Rankings.

Welcome to our desktop CPU comparison. We calculate effective speed which measures performance under typical consumer load. Effective speed is adjusted by price to yield a value for money rating. Calculated values don't always paint the whole picture so we check them against hundreds of individual user ratings. Vote to share your opinion. [CPUPro]

Group Test Results

How Fast Is Your CPU? (Bench your build) Size up your PC in less than a minute.

Welcome to our free PC speed test tool. UserBenchMark will compare the strengths and weaknesses of each component in your PC to the ten most popular components in its class.

How it works

  • - Download and run UserBenchMark (UBM)
  • - Checks include: 4k Align, NCQ, TRIM, SATA, USB & S.M.A.R.T.
  • - Drive benchmarks include: read, write and mixed IO.
  • - CPU benchmarks include: integer, floating and string.
  • - GPU benchmarks include: DX9 and DX10 3D performance.
  • - Reports are generated and presented on
  • - Identify the strongest components in your PC
  • - See speed test results from other users
  • - Compare your components to the highest voted in class
  • - Share your opinion by voting
Custom PC Builder (Start a new build) Compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money.

PC Builder will help you build your perfect PC by clearly presenting relevant performance statistics together with price, compatibility and popularity data.

Frequently Asked Questions


Share this page Share with friends on Facebook Share with followers on Twitter Share with followers on Google+
The Best.
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 16GBSamsung 850 Pro 256GBIntel Core i7-4790KWD Black 1TB (2013)AMD R9 280X
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 32GBCrucial M550 256GBIntel Core i5-4690KWD Blue 1TB (2012)AMD R9 290X
SanDisk Extreme USB 3.0 64GBSamsung 850 Evo 250GBIntel Pentium G3258Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TBAMD R9 280
Benchmark your PC Custom Build a PC
User Guide  •  About  •  @Email  •  Privacy