Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon Processor Review

Jump To:

Intel Core i7-4790K CPU Temp Testing


The Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon processor uses Next-Generation Polymer Thermal Interface Material (NGPTIM), so let’s take a look at idle and load temperatures to see if we can tell a difference between the 4770K and 4790K when tested on the same exact system with identical applications of Gelid Extreme Thermal Compound on the Corsair H105 Closed Loop Water Cooler. Intel says that new thermal compound should mean that you can get better CPU temperatures. Some will be disappointed that Intel didn’t solder the lid down on Devil’s Canyon, but everyone should be happy that Intel improved the thermal interface material. If it works, we hope that Intel uses it on all Broadwell processor or at least the Broadwell K-series processors when they come out later this year.



With the Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon processor sitting on the desktop at an idle we observed an average CPU core temperature that bounced around 26-28C and the voltage was at 0.7220V. We ran a run of POV-Ray 3.7 across all the CPU cores and saw that it the processor temperature topped out at 71C and was using 1.2590V. The test was repeatable and after running it half a dozen times we were constantly hitting 70-71C each time. We used the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility v4.4 to monitor the temperatures. So, on our system with the Corsair H105 water cooler along with Gelid Extreme Thermal Compound we were running 26-28C at idle and 70-71C at load. How does this compare to the Intel Core i7-4770K on the same setup?



On the Intel Core i7-4770K processor we would get 36-38C idle temperatures with the CPU core voltage defaulting to 0.6930V and when running POV-Ray we topped out at 65-66C at 1.1300V.


So, to recap the temperatures we are seeing pretty significant temperature differences on the Intel Core i7-4790K versus the Intel Core i7-4770K. For example at idle we found Devil’s Canyon (4790K) to be 10C cooler, which is pretty damn amazing. At load the 4790K was hotter, but you have to keep in mind that while it is 5C warmer, it is running with 500MHz faster turb0 clock speeds and at a higher vCore. The fact that it is only 5C warmer is impressive. The ambient room temperature was 75F for those that are curious.

Jump To:
  • She-Ra

    Basically devil’s canyon has the same overclocking scaling as the ivy bridge 3770K in both the I5 and I7 processors. Two generations news with a few more bells and whistles but the same OC cap as ivy. If you consider it comes in at 4ghz but only jumps to 4.5-4.7 which is the same as the 4770K. Essentially a chip that comes mildly overclocked which can be achieved in the 4770K with the exact same OC’d results. Obviously, that is the chip because of those added bells and whistles. The 22nm process is showing that it’s dated. Intel really needs some new silicon or something so they can hit 5ghz. PC gamers need the speed. They should also add a feature that uses internal graphics in tandem with PCI Express graphics cards. It’s really a simple solution adding integrated graphics. I am not talking about quick sync. I simply give intel ideas to revive their PC gaming market.

  • klepp0906

    Clock for clock they’re the exact same chip. So unless your convinced you can get an extra few hundred MHz out of a 4790 save your money.

    For me running a delidded watercooled haSwell at 4700mhz I can’t imagine (based on all results I’ve seen thus far) being able to attain a high enough overclock to make it worthwhile.

    • CharlesAnderson

      I can – it’s better to run a stock Devil’s Canyon at 4700 MHz and keep your warranty intact.

  • Kat

    I think the Intel Deviled Egg would be a better name…

  • anon

    I’d like to see this and the 4770k compared when they’re both overclocked as high as possible. “High as possible” depends on the sample of course, but I still think it’s more useful then comparing with stock speeds, since the 4790k’s is higher but at the expense of greater power draw and heat.

    • Thomas Dameron

      except that OCing a CPU as high as possible reduces its life to a few months and doesn’t give any useful information

      • anon

        I meant as high as reasonably achievable.

      • klepp0906

        It does?

      • dj3hac

        I ran an Intel E8500 @ 3.6ghz for years no problem at all, it’s still running in a dedicated server. It’s be going 24/7 at that speed for 6 or 7 years now.

  • Steven Kean

    Tempting upgrade from a 3570K…

  • Will Beams

    What the heck? 71c under load with a Corsair H105 Closed Loop Water Cooler??? Then how hot does the bloody thing get with an after market air cooler, let alone the stock cooler? Something doesn’t seem to be right here…

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Haswell has always been regarded as a fairly hot processor, so nothing out of the ordinary there! I actually thought that was low and was extremely happy with that. I used the latest version of Intel XTU and screen shots are in the review and everything was done more than once and was consistent.

    • Vinny

      they were using the integrated graphics that why it ran hotter….if you use a dedicated card it wouldn’t run so hot then 🙂

    • name

      I have the 4790k with an h110 and mine doesn’t go over 60C on a full load.

      • klepp0906

        Load it with IBT then and not Aida or something foo foo :p

        (Assuming your overclocked)

  • Coach

    Great review. I was very curious/anxious to read this. It’s selling at $279 at MicroCenter. VERY tempting! I want to see how the Broadwell’s do, but I’m sure they’re price point will be much higher.

  • OJ

    Hopefully some of the 4790ks do manage to hit 5GHz otherwise the extra features such as the smoothing caps and the thermal interface don’t achieve much. Although the the improvements lead me to assume that some 4790k chips should be more stable when clocked over 4.5Ghz.

    • Thomas Dameron

      umm, 500 MHz a core is actually a pretty good boost, especially considering that the 4770k was pretty shaky at anything over 4.3 GHz

      • Joe Joejoe

        And compared to AMD, a 500Mhz boost is more like a 4×1.5Ghz boost, especially when it’s on 4 cores rather than 8.

    • ricksanchez1

      I was disappointed they didn’t push the chip until it burned. If they ran all their tests, and more come along in a week, a $350 chip can’t be sacrificed for the point of testing?