OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i7 4770K Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£45PassMark benchmark result:7143N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:LGA1150TDP (Thermal design power):84 W

Intel Core i7 4770K Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

90%

4.2

Technical score

10%

9.2

User score

â–¼Worse than 69% of processors
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 78% of processors
9.2

User score

User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 1,208 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
★Better than 91% of processors
  • intel-core-i7-4770k
  • intel-core-i7-4770k
intel-core-i7-4770k
intel-core-i7-4770k

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 4770K

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

4.2
User score
User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components

70%

8.8

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on 1,208 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
9.2
Popularity
Popularity
10.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i7 4770K has a popularity score of 10 points, which is higher than that of 91.9% of products in this category.
10
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Overall score

40%

10

Price

6.3
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1150
CPU socket
LGA1150
â–² Better than 57% of models
This processor uses the LGA1150 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 56.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Chipset
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
Chipset
H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor supports H97, Z97, H87, Q87, B85, Q85, Z87, H81 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 52.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 64.9% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.5 GHz
â–² Better than 50% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 13.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4600
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4600
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 65.7% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Integrated GPU execution units
20
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
â–² Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 75.6% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
84 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
84 W
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 84 W which is higher than that of 87.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
84 W
Base power (PL1)
84 W
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 84 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
84 W
Boost power (PL2)
84 W
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 84 W which is higher than that of 60.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 8 seconds which is longer than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 4770K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.12x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,376.9
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,376.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,376.9 vs 334.1
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 10x more popular
    Intel Core i7 4770K is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
    10 vs 1
  • 14.5% higher user score
    User score
    9.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i7 4770K
    the average processor
    Intel Core i7 4770K has a higher user score than the average processor (9.16 vs 8.000).
    9.16 vs 8
  • 5.56x cheaper
    Intel Core i7 4770K is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
    £45 vs £250
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 10x more popular
    Intel Core i7 4770K is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
    10 vs 1
  • 14.5% higher user score
    User score
    9.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Intel Core i7 4770K
    the average processor
    Intel Core i7 4770K has a higher user score than the average processor (9.16 vs 8.000).
    9.16 vs 8
  • 5.56x cheaper
    Intel Core i7 4770K is cheaper than the average processor (£45 vs £250).
    £45 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1150
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1150 vs FP4).
    LGA1150 vs FP4
  • 4.12x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,376.9
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,376.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,376.9 vs 334.1
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 38.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    302
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (302 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    302 vs 489
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 87.1% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    49.85
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (49.9 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    49.85 vs 387.66
  • 32.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,143
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,143 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,143 vs 10,572.5
  • 86.7% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    84 W
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (84 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    84 W vs 45 W
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 7 years older release date
    Release date
    2013
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    June 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 38.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    302
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (302 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    302 vs 489
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 87.1% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    49.85
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (49.9 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    49.85 vs 387.66
  • 32.4% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,143
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,143 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,143 vs 10,572.5
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 36.6% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,769
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,769 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,769 vs 2,791
  • 13.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,159
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,159 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,159 vs 2,500
  • 13% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,280
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,280 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,280 vs 1,471
  • 15.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    4,092
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,092 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,092 vs 4,829
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Haswell
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR3-1600 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 86.7% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    84 W
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (84 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    84 W vs 45 W
  • 86.7% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    84 W
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (84 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    84 W vs 45 W
  • 40% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    84 W
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (84 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    84 W vs 60 W
  • 20 seconds shorter turbo duration
    Tau (power duration limit)
    8 seconds
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
    This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (8 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
    8 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

U
uk.pcmag.com
16/05/2014
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K - PCMag UK Would you like to see how this processor's performance benchmarks compare to newer generations in a specific applicatio...
D
decryptedtech.com
16/06/2013
Summary of the review
Fourth Generation Core i7 Review, Meet the Intel Core i7 4770k
D
digitalfoundry.net
02/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7 4770K review - Digital Foundry
E
expertreviews.co.uk
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K (Haswell) Review
T
tweaktown.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K (Haswell 4th Gen) CPU and Z87 Express Chipset Review
T
tomshardware.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
The Core i7-4770K Review: Haswell Is Faster - Tom's Hardware
T
techspot.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Haswell Makes Its Debut: Core i7-4770K Review
G
guru3d.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Core i7 4770K processor review - Guru 3d
T
techgage.com
19/07/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K Quad-Core Processor Review - Techgage Would you like me to find benchmarks comparing this model specifically against newer generat...
T
techradar.com
02/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K review - TechRadar
O
overclockers.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel i7 4770K - Haswell - CPU Review - Overclockers
H
hexus.net
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Review: Intel Core i7-4770K (22nm Haswell) - CPU - HEXUS.net
C
chip.de
16/10/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K (Desktop CPU) Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Haswell Review: Intel Core i7-4770K and all i5 models
(Translated)Show original
C
cowcotland.com
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-4670K and Core i7-4770K CPU Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
18/03/2013
Summary of the review
Exclusive: Intel Haswell Core i7-4770K Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.fr
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K and i5-4670K: Haswell Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Core i7-4770K Haswell: All that for this?
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
4th Generation Intel Core. Core i7-4770k - Geeknetic
(Translated)Show original
E
elchapuzasinformatico.com
05/07/2013
Summary of the review
Review: Intel Core i7-4770K - El Chapuzas Informático
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Core i7-4770K Review: Intel Haswell is faster but doesn't impress
(Translated)Show original
M
multiplayer.it
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K Review - Processors
(Translated)Show original
H
hwupgrade.it
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K: the Haswell CPU at its debut
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
05/06/2013
Summary of the review
AMD Richland: A10-6800K tested (Including i7-4770K benchmarks)
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
15/08/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4770K Boxed review by meirnoordermeer
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7 4770K / Core i5 4670K / Core i5 4430 review: Haswell tested!
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/06/2013
Summary of the review
New Intel Generation: All Is Well That Is Haswell?
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 1,208 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i7 4770K

  • Improved architecture (Haswell) providing a 5-15% performance boost over the previous generation Ivy Bridge.
  • Integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics offer a significant performance jump, supporting 4K video playback and DirectX 11.1.
  • Unlocked multiplier ('K' series) allows for easier overclocking control for enthusiasts.
  • Introduction of new instruction sets like AVX2 and FMA3 for better performance in supported modern workloads.
  • Excellent power efficiency at idle and low-load states compared to older architectures.
  • Strong single-core performance that remains viable for many general-purpose applications and older gaming titles.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 4770K

  • Runs significantly hotter than previous generations, often requiring high-end cooling or 'delidding' for stable high overclocks.
  • Limited overclocking headroom compared to the i7-3770K due to thermal management and integrated voltage regulator issues.
  • Requires a new LGA 1150 motherboard, making it a more expensive upgrade for those on older sockets.
  • Modest performance gains for gamers already owning Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge systems, making the upgrade cost-benefit debatable.
  • Lacks certain enterprise features like v-Pro, VT-d, and TSX support, which are available on the non-K variant.
  • Increased power consumption at maximum load (AVX workloads) compared to its predecessors.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-4770K is a 4th Generation Haswell quad-core processor featuring 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a 3.5 GHz base clock speed, and a 3.9 GHz Turbo Boost frequency. Built on a 22nm process with an 84W TDP, it includes 8MB of Intel Smart Cache, an integrated HD Graphics 4600 core, and supports dual-channel DDR3/L-1333/1600 memory on the LGA 1150 socket. Its primary pros include an unlocked multiplier for significant overclocking potential, strong single-core and multitasking performance for media editing, and improved integrated graphics over previous generations. Notable cons include its lack of support for certain enterprise features like VT-d, vPro, and TSX, as well as higher operating temperatures during heavy overclocking due to the thermal interface material used between the die and heat spreader.

Compare Intel Core i7 4770K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 4770K and other processors

No results found