CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-7600 and Intel Core i7-4790S present a fascinating generational clash, pitting a newer 14 nm Kaby Lake design against an older 22 nm Haswell part with Hyper-Threading. The benchmark data reveals a split decision that defies simple expectations, with the older i7 dominating Cinebench workloads while the newer i5 takes a commanding lead in Geekbench, particularly in single-core performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the complete divergence between the two benchmark suites. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i7-4790S emerges victorious, but the margins are remarkably consistent and narrow. In cinebench_r15_multicore, the i7-4790S scores 595 against the i5-7600's 563, a 5.4% advantage. This same 5.4% delta repeats in cinebench_r20_multicore (2482 vs 2348) and cinebench_r23_multicore (5911 vs 5591). The single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, with the i7-4790S ahead by 6% in r15 (84 vs 79) and 5.4% in both r20 (350 vs 331) and r23 (834 vs 789). This consistency across generations of the same benchmark suite suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rooted in the i7's additional threads rather than clock speed superiority.

The Geekbench results flip the narrative entirely. Here, the i5-7600 wins decisively. In geekbench_multicore, the i5-7600 scores 3704 versus the i7-4790S's 3307, a 12% advantage. The single-core gap is even more pronounced: 1344 versus 1056, representing a massive 27.3% lead for the i5-7600. This dramatic divergence between Cinebench and Geekbench results raises a critical question: are these benchmarks measuring fundamentally different aspects of CPU performance, or does the i7-4790S's age manifest differently across workload types? The data suggests that Geekbench's single-core test is particularly sensitive to architectural improvements in the newer Kaby Lake design, while Cinebench's rendering workloads benefit more from the i7's eight threads.

Looking at the broader context, both CPUs sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite their different strengths. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i5-7600 at 1844 and the i7-4790S at 1827, a difference of less than 1%. The i5-7600's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8706G (deltaPct 0.1%) and AMD Athlon Gold PRO 3150G (deltaPct 0.5%), while the i7-4790S's closest competitors are the Intel Xeon D-1537 (deltaPct -0.2%) and Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 (deltaPct -0.2%). These neighbor comparisons reinforce that the two CPUs are statistical peers in aggregate, even as their individual benchmark profiles diverge sharply.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, spanning two process nodes and three years of design evolution. The i5-7600 uses Intel's 14 nm process technology under the Kaby Lake architecture, while the i7-4790S relies on the older 22 nm Haswell design. This process shrink is directly reflected in the transistor and die specifications: the i7-4790S contains 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the i5-7600's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data. The smaller process node typically enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, though both CPUs share a 65 W TDP.

Core and thread configurations differ fundamentally. The i5-7600 offers 4 cores and 4 threads, lacking Hyper-Threading, while the i7-4790S provides 4 cores and 8 threads. This doubling of thread count is the likely driver behind the i7's consistent Cinebench victories. Clock speeds partially compensate: the i5-7600 runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock boosting to 4.10 GHz, while the i7-4790S operates at 3.20 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. Despite the i7's lower clocks, its extra threads allow it to edge ahead in multi-threaded rendering tests, though the i5's higher boost clock contributes to its single-core Geekbench dominance.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The i5-7600 features 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-4790S has 8 MB. Both share identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) configurations. Memory support reflects their respective generations: the i5-7600 uses DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-4790S is limited to DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. This memory bandwidth advantage for the i5-7600 (50% higher) could contribute to its Geekbench multicore lead, though it apparently does not translate to Cinebench performance. Integrated graphics also differ, with the i5-7600 featuring HD 630 and the i7-4790S using the older HD 4600.

FAQ

Q: Why does the older Intel Core i7-4790S beat the newer i5-7600 in Cinebench tests?

A: The i7-4790S has 8 threads versus the i5-7600's 4 threads, thanks to Hyper-Threading. Across all six Cinebench runs, the i7-4790S maintains a consistent 5.4-6% lead, which aligns with the additional thread resources available for rendering workloads.

Q: How can the i5-7600 win by 27.3% in Geekbench single-core if it loses in Cinebench single-core?

A: The benchmarks measure different workload characteristics. In geekbench_singlecore, the i5-7600 scores 1344 versus 1056 for the i7-4790S. The i5-7600's higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz (versus 4.00 GHz) and newer Kaby Lake architecture likely explain this divergence, though Cinebench's single-core tests show a 5.4-6% advantage for the i7-4790S instead.

Q: Which CPU has better memory bandwidth, and does it matter?

A: The i5-7600 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-4790S uses DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. This 50% bandwidth advantage may contribute to the i5-7600's 12% lead in geekbench_multicore, though it does not prevent the i7-4790S from winning Cinebench multicore tests.

Q: Are these CPUs still competitive in today's market?

A: Both sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, with nearly identical average benchmark scores (1844 for the i5-7600, 1827 for the i7-4790S). The i5-7600 is listed as Active in production, while the i7-4790S is End-of-life, which may affect availability.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The i5-7600 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the i7-4790S uses Intel Socket 1150. They are not interchangeable, and each requires a compatible motherboard for its respective socket.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the i7-4790S?

A: The launch MSRP is $312. No launch MSRP is specified for the i5-7600 in the data.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture that resists a simple "winner" designation. The i7-4790S wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, taking every Cinebench test with a consistent 5.4-6% margin. However, the i5-7600's victories in Geekbench are far more dramatic, with a 12% multicore advantage and a 27.3% single-core lead. In terms of raw benchmark counts, the i7-4790S appears superior, but the magnitude of the i5-7600's Geekbench wins suggests that the newer architecture has a significant edge in certain workload types.

For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the i7-4790S's extra threads provide a clear, if modest, benefit. The consistency of its Cinebench victories across three different versions (r15, r20, r23) indicates a reliable advantage in multi-threaded rendering. Conversely, for applications that resemble Geekbench's test patterns, particularly single-threaded tasks, the i5-7600 is substantially faster, and its DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth offers a more modern platform foundation.

The i5-7600's Active production status versus the i7-4790S's End-of-life status further differentiates them. Both CPUs occupy the same 42nd percentile and have nearly identical average scores, making them equivalent in aggregate performance. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload leans toward the i7-4790S's thread advantage or the i5-7600's architectural and memory advantages.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-7600 | Intel Core i7-4790S |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Haswell |

| Generation | Core i5 (Kaby Lake) | Core i7 (Haswell) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 177 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | HD 630 | Intel HD 4600 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2014-05-10 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $312 |

| Part Number | SR334 | SR1QM |

Where Each One Wins

The i7-4790S claims victory in every Cinebench iteration, from r15 through r23, in both single-core and multi-core variants. Its 6% single-core advantage in cinebench_r15 (84 vs 79) and consistent 5.4% multi-core margins across all three versions paint a picture of a CPU that handles rendering pipelines efficiently, likely due to its 8 threads. Users working with video rendering, 3D modeling, or other Cinebench-like workloads would find the i7-4790S delivers a modest but reliable edge.

The i5-7600's wins are concentrated in Geekbench, where its 27.3% single-core lead (1344 vs 1056) and 12% multi-core advantage (3704 vs 3307) are anything but modest. This suggests the Kaby Lake architecture provides substantial gains for general-purpose computing, web browsing, office applications, and other tasks that Geekbench's workload patterns represent. The i5-7600 also benefits from DDR4 memory support and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, making it the more future-proof platform choice despite its lower thread count. The 50% memory bandwidth advantage could benefit memory-intensive applications that don't rely on the same rendering paths as Cinebench.

The production status difference is telling: the i5-7600 remains Active while the i7-4790S is End-of-life. For new system builds, the i5-7600 offers an actively supported platform with modern DDR4 memory, while the i7-4790S represents a legacy DDR3 platform with a consistent, if narrow, edge in Cinebench-style workloads. The benchmark data ultimately shows two CPUs that are statistical equals in aggregate, with the choice boiling down to specific workload priorities and platform preferences.