Intel Core i5-2500K vs Intel Core i5-4590T Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core i5-4590T and the Intel Core i5-2500K reveals a clear split along workload type. The 2500K wins five of the seven head-to-head tests, while the 4590T takes two, with the margins telling a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In Cinebench workloads, the 2500K maintains a consistent but narrow advantage across all four multicore tests. The Cinebench R15 multicore result shows the 2500K at 354 against the 4590T's 347, a delta of -2% in favor of the older chip. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (1479 vs 1446, -2.2%), Cinebench R23 multicore (3523 vs 3445, -2.2%), and Cinebench R23 singlecore (497 vs 486, -2.2%). The single-core Cinebench R20 test follows the same trend, with the 2500K scoring 208 against 204, a 1.9% edge. These are not dramatic differences; they sit within a tight band of 1.9% to 2.2%, suggesting the two processors deliver nearly identical rendering throughput despite the generational gap.

The 4590T, however, dominates the Geekbench suite. In Geekbench singlecore, the Haswell part scores 911 versus 805 for the 2500K, a substantial 13.2% advantage. The multicore Geekbench test also favors the 4590T, with a score of 2540 against 2434, representing a 4.4% lead. This divergence between Cinebench and Geekbench results indicates that the 4590T's architecture handles the Geekbench workload pattern more efficiently, while the 2500K's higher clock speeds compensate in the Cinebench tasks.

Looking at overall averages, the 4590T posts an average benchmark score of 1340, while the 2500K sits at 1329. The 4590T ranks in the 36th percentile of all CPUs, with the 2500K just behind at the 35th percentile. Given the head-to-head data, the wins are split 5-2 in favor of the 2500K, but the Geekbench singlecore result is the largest margin of any test—the 13.2% gap is more than six times the size of the 2500K's largest Cinebench win.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-2500K wins five of the seven head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-4590T wins two. However, the 4590T's two wins include the largest single margin of any test.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The 2500K leads in all Cinebench multicore tests, with margins between 2% and 2.2%. In Cinebench R15, it scores 354 versus 347; in R20, 1479 versus 1446; and in R23, 3523 versus 3445. The 4590T takes the Geekbench multicore test, scoring 2540 against 2434.

Q: Is there a meaningful difference in single-core performance?

A: Yes, and the direction depends on the benchmark. The 2500K edges ahead in Cinebench R20 singlecore (208 vs 204) and Cinebench R23 singlecore (497 vs 486), both by about 2%. But the 4590T wins Geekbench singlecore decisively, 911 versus 805, a 13.2% lead.

Q: How close are the two processors in overall average score?

A: The 4590T has an average benchmark score of 1340, while the 2500K averages 1329. That is a difference of 11 points, or roughly 0.8%, placing both in essentially the same performance tier.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The 4590T sits at the 36th percentile of all CPUs, and the 2500K at the 35th percentile. This confirms they perform at nearly identical levels relative to the broader CPU landscape.

Q: Which processor's closest rivals are most comparable?

A: The 4590T's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-760 at an average score of 1337, just 0.2% away. The 2500K's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-4460S at 1330, a 0.1% difference, though the Intel Celeron G6900T and G6900E also sit nearby at 1321.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-2500K is the pick for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its wins across R15, R20, and R23—both multicore and singlecore—are consistent, with every margin between 1.9% and 2.2%. That the older Sandy Bridge chip holds this edge across three generations of the Cinebench test suggests its 3.30 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost clocks, paired with a 95W TDP, deliver sustained performance that the lower-clocked 4590T cannot match in these specific tasks. Users running rendering or multi-threaded content creation that resemble Cinebench's workload will see a slight but repeatable advantage.

The Core i5-4590T wins where the workload favors architectural efficiency over raw clock speed. The Geekbench singlecore result is the standout: 911 versus 805, a 13.2% margin that dwarfs any advantage the 2500K holds elsewhere. The Geekbench multicore win, 2540 versus 2434 at 4.4%, is also more than double the 2500K's largest Cinebench margin. This indicates the Haswell architecture processes Geekbench's mixed integer, floating-point, and memory-access patterns more effectively. For general-purpose computing, web browsing, office work, or any task that mirrors Geekbench's synthetic mix, the 4590T is the better performer despite its lower clock speeds.

The 4590T also wins on efficiency. Its 35W TDP is less than half the 2500K's 95W TDP, making it the sensible choice for thermally constrained systems or builds prioritizing low power draw. The 2500K counters with an unlocked multiplier, offering overclocking headroom that the 4590T lacks, which could close or widen gaps depending on the user's cooling solution.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The 4590T has a 2000 MHz base clock and 3000 MHz boost clock, while the 2500K runs at 3300 MHz base and 3700 MHz boost. The 4590T's TDP is 35W versus 95W for the 2500K—a 60W difference that has significant cooling and power implications.

Socket compatibility is another major divergence. The 4590T uses Intel Socket 1150, while the 2500K uses Intel Socket 1155, meaning they are not interchangeable in any motherboard. The process node also differs: 22 nm for the Haswell part versus 32 nm for Sandy Bridge. Transistor counts reflect this: 1,400 million for the 4590T against 1,160 million for the 2500K, yet the 4590T has a smaller die size at 177 mm² compared to 216 mm².

Memory support is identical in specification—both use DDR3 with dual-channel configuration and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth—but PCIe generation differs. The 4590T offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 2500K provides Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also vary: the 4590T carries Intel HD 4600, while the 2500K has Intel HD 3000.

The 2500K has an unlocked multiplier, a feature absent from the 4590T, which matters for overclocking enthusiasts. The 2500K launched at a higher MSRP of $216, while the 4590T launched at $192. Release dates are also distinct, with the 2500K arriving earlier on 2011-01-08 and the 4590T on 2014-05-10.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips spans a full generation and a process node shrink. The 4590T is built on Haswell architecture at 22 nm, while the 2500K uses Sandy Bridge at 32 nm. This node transition allowed Intel to pack more transistors into a smaller die: 1,400 million in 177 mm² versus 1,160 million in 216 mm².

Both processors feature four cores and four threads, with identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The similarities end there. Haswell introduced architectural improvements over Sandy Bridge that show up in the Geekbench results—the 13.2% singlecore advantage in that test despite a 700 MHz lower boost clock indicates substantial IPC gains from memory, branch prediction, and execution unit enhancements.

The integrated GPU differs as well. The 4590T's Intel HD 4600 is a more capable graphics solution than the 2500K's Intel HD 3000, providing better media and display capabilities for systems without a discrete graphics card. PCIe support also advances a generation: Gen 3 on the 4590T versus Gen 2 on the 2500K, doubling the available bandwidth for compatible devices.

The 2500K's unlocked multiplier is a functional architectural difference that enables overclocking, potentially shifting its performance profile upward in ways the benchmark data cannot capture. The 4590T, with its 35W TDP and locked multiplier, is clearly designed for efficiency-constrained environments rather than enthusiast tuning. These architectural choices explain the benchmark patterns: the 2500K's higher clocks drive its Cinebench wins, while the 4590T's architectural refinements drive its Geekbench dominance.