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

Jump To:

POV-Ray 3.7

Processor Performance on Pov-Ray 3.7:

The Persistence of Vision Ray-Tracer was developed from DKBTrace 2.12 (written by David K. Buck and Aaron A. Collins) by a bunch of people (called the POV-Team) in their spare time. It is a high-quality, totally free tool for creating stunning three-dimensional graphics. It is available in official versions for Windows, Mac OS/Mac OS X and i86 Linux. The POV-Ray package includes detailed instructions on using the ray-tracer and creating scenes. Many stunning scenes are included with POV-Ray so you can start creating images immediately when you get the package. These scenes can be modified so you do not have to start from scratch. In addition to the pre-defined scenes, a large library of pre-defined shapes and materials is provided. You can include these shapes and materials in your own scenes by just including the library file name at the top of your scene file and by using the shape or material name in your scene. Since this is free software feel free to download this version and try it out on your own.

The most significant change from the end-user point of view between versions 3.6 and 3.7 is the addition of SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) support, which, in a nutshell, allows the renderer to run on as many CPU’s as you have installed on your computer. This will be particularly useful for those users who intend on purchasing a dual-core CPU or who already have a two (or more) processor machine. On a two-CPU system the rendering speed in some scenes almost doubles. For our benchmarking we used version 3.7 RC5, which is the most recent version available. The benchmark used all available cores to their fullest extent to complete the render.

Pov-Ray 3.7 RC3

Once rendering on the object we selected was completed, we took the elapsed time from the dialog box, which indicates the exact time it took for the benchmark to finish the benchmark and a score in PPS. We are using the final CPU score for our benchmarks and a higher value indicates faster system performance.

povray

Benchmark Results: The Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon processor finished the POV-Ray benchmark with a score of 1817.6 PPS, which is 12.5% faster than the Intel Core i7-4770K that came in at 1615.2. This also means that it is 27.2% faster than the Intel Core i7-3770K processor.

Print
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?