
We use two distinct Photoshop benchmarks, one of which fully taxes each processor’s x86 cores using well-threaded filters, and another that is OpenCL-optimized to leverage graphics resources. Don’t compare the black and red bars above—they’re only together to save space (and your scrolling finger).
Beginning with the CPU-only benchmark, according to which this chart is ordered, Intel’s Core i7-4770K slots in behind the Core i7-3930K and just ahead of the FX-8350. Though, the Core i7-3770K and -2700K are within two seconds of AMD’s flagship. In comparison, the company’s fastest A10-5800K trails far behind.
Calling this the OpenCL version of our benchmark is a little disingenuous, since we already ran our benchmarks based on each processor's on-die graphics engine using this same workload. Here, all platforms are accompanied by Nvidia’s GeForce GTX Titan, so the differences are wholly attributable to CPU interaction.
Now we see that the Core i7-4770K, -3770K, and 2700K take the top three spots, followed by Sandy Bridge-E. Perhaps it’s a utilization issue, but the FX-8350 and A10-5800K simply do not pair as well to a Titan in this test as Intel’s newer desktop architectures.

Our Premiere Pro CS6 benchmark is likewise optimized to take advantage of as many cores as we throw at it, and that’s why the almost 17-month-old Core i7-3930K maintains its first-place position. Yes, this is a $570 CPU, but there’s a reason we gave it our highest honor in Intel Core i7-3930K And Core i7-3820: Sandy Bridge-E, Cheaper.
Meanwhile, Core i7-4770K is only about 5% faster than Core i7-3770K. Hardly a reason to upgrade, taken on its own.

A first-place finish for Intel’s Core i7-4770K only puts it about six percent in front of its predecessor. Meanwhile, the Core i7-3930K we’d expect to be out front in a threaded title falls to third place. Consistently, this application demonstrates lower performance on platforms with higher thread counts if memory capacity doesn’t increase concurrently. Our 16 GB memory kit remains constant, helping explain why Sandy Bridge-E and AMD’s FX-8350 drop in the standings.
- Haswell Turns Into Intel's Fourth-Gen Core Architecture
- HD Graphics 4600: 3D And Quick Sync
- HD Graphics 4600: Impressive OpenCL
- HD Graphics 4600: Battlefield 3
- HD Graphics 4600: BioShock Infinite
- HD Graphics 4600: Hitman: Absolution
- HD Graphics 4600: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- HD Graphics 4600: World of Warcraft: Mists Of Pandaria
- Intel 8-Series Chipsets: Z87 Is Nice
- Overclocking Haswell: You’ll Pay For That
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: Synthetics
- Results: Adobe CS6
- Results: Content Creation
- Results: Productivity
- Results: Compression Apps
- Results: Media Encoding
- Power Consumption
- Core i7-4770K: Did I Shave My Legs For This?
Also thought I recently heard somewhere of others getting Nice 5GHz+ OC's on water and Very low vcore's - perhaps you guys have a Poor batch?
No one will be reading it.
SoC is pushing it a bit given it doesn't contain RAM, USB, network, etc.
But with Haswell, the world has gone backwards. Apparently, a 4770k can be pushed to 4.4GHz and that's it. That's a 7% reduction in clock speed. Since most benchmarks don't show a 7% improvement at stock, Haswell is slower than the Ivy Bridge that it replaced.
For years we've been hearing that the answer to all our tech questions is "you have to wait for Haswell for that". But as this article shows, that was a lot of hot air.
Finally, AMD wins on price AND performance.