Intel Core i5-12600K CPU-Z Scores Show 50% Higher Multi-Threaded Results Than i5-11600K

[yeeeeman]

Threads are 14 vs 12, which is not a 50% increase on its own. This shows us just how much the cores have improved.

And yeah while CPU-Z does not show much, it is something to think about before our official benchmarks arrive.

threads are actually 12 + 4 cause it has 4 small cores, hence 16 threads

It seems that in CPU related tests Alder Lake has no competition.

Lets see if gaming is Alder Lakes Achilles heel. I wonder if the smaller cores can be disabled
to limit gaming compatibility issues with the like's of Denuvo drm etc. That would be bad
if it needs to be disabled in order for older games to run properly.

The main reason Windows 11 was launched to get max performance from Intels new CPU +/-15% apparently.

nope, a slide with gaming has been leaked, it is quite a bit better in gaming even, vs zen 3.

 

[Vayra86]

125w for a 12600, I guess that all the chips that dont make into a 12900 and a 12700 then end up being a 12600. Also need to pay attention here that 125w intel is 300w real, for instance my ryzen 5900x, AMD states 105w for it and the truth is a little bit more than that, 115w at wall, all default, it depends the chip quality too. There might be 5900x that use less than 100w, all default in which most of them could have become a 5950x and some end up being a 5900x by luck.

View attachment 222568

I'm very, very interested in a straight comparison of a P-core's IPC related to Watts, compared to Skylake gen (Coffee Lake?) cores. The price seems right, but the actual gain seems pretty damn limited over all these years. When I see the CPUs even in the midrange have inflated TDPs of 125W BASE, and are well capable of turboing to 150 that's straight into heavy Coffee Lake OC territory, go figure. When I see 135W on my current chip, its not pretty going on air.

For a 6c12t chip with only 'P' cores... that seems remarkably similar to the max turbo for 6 P ADL cores. Net gain 200 mhz when compared to my rather poor chip

Somehow consumer chip TDPs have straight up doubled over the course of 3-5 years and we call it progress. Mkay, but we need to quantify that a LOT better. What I'm seeing is the core count opened up flexibility in budget that somehow ended up being used to boost to higher top-end frequencies way out of efficiency curves, to win benchmarks.

 

[arni-gx]

125w for a 12600, I guess that all the chips that dont make into a 12900 and a 12700 then end up being a 12600. Also need to pay attention here that 125w intel is 300w real, for instance my ryzen 5900x, AMD states 105w for it and the truth is a little bit more than that, 115w at wall, all default, it depends the chip quality too. There might be 5900x that use less than 100w, all default in which most of them could have become a 5950x and some end up being a 5900x by luck.

that TDP by intel cpu comet lake and rocket lake, right now is still make me very confused...... TDp 125w or 65w is it real load watt on all pc games......??

 

[docnorth]

View attachment 222568

Pricing is almost exciting, despite the slightly pricier boards, especially for those who will choose DDR4. But maybe even more interesting is maximum turbo power, if it equals PL2 it's significantly lower than Comet Lake.

that TDP by intel cpu comet lake and rocket lake, right now is still make me very confused...... TDp 125w or 65w is it real load watt on all pc games......??

It is supposed to be official, maximum turbo power for 12600K 150w (via Videocardz).

 

[InVasMani]

Might not be bad for a CPU and motherboard combo at MicroCenter in the US if you live near one. I don't how they'll be online however. Either way if it's a good chip at least it'll knock down some of the current prices of older CPU's and MB hardware a bit so it's a win win.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

that TDP by intel cpu comet lake and rocket lake, right now is still make me very confused...... TDp 125w or 65w is it real load watt on all pc games......??

TDP is an engineering spec, and is only somewhat related to real loads. You will almost certainly never see that full number from any game, or most other software.

That's the short answer. Should you be looking for something more in-depth, I can try to dig up a link or two.

 

[The King]

threads are actually 12 + 4 cause it has 4 small cores, hence 16 threads


nope, a slide with gaming has been leaked, it is quite a bit better in gaming even, vs zen 3.

I will wait for official benchmarks here on TPU. Not Intel's unbiased cherry picked circus slide show. Thanks

 

[Vayra86]

that TDP by intel cpu comet lake and rocket lake, right now is still make me very confused...... TDp 125w or 65w is it real load watt on all pc games......??

Your CPU can easily spike to 125W-150W, that is the gist.

But in most situations, it will probably not use quite as much. However, any scenario where the CPU is the bottleneck, you're likely going to see way upwards of the 65W you're used to, as the CPU is allowed to go over double that scenario, and since it has a high top frequency, it likely will to minimize its bottleneck. You'll want the cooling capacity available, is the bottom line. Additionally, Intel has allowed itself a lot of wiggle room in achieving their 4.9 ~ 5.1 Ghz because 10nm isn't very good at it, and power usage increases horribly above its efficiency curve. That's one reason those E-cores exist, too - they'll allow the P cores to boost higher because there is more TDP budget over X time. And yet, they still run 6 cores over 150W to get them to turbo as they are specced. Go figure.

Everything else is BS - technical spec or not, this CPU will hit the red zone for every user once in a while, because its specced as such.

An example, loading up a game such as Overwatch utilizes a bit of AVX and is well threaded to speed up the process - it would readily push usage to 125-150W on this CPU. So: in general, the actual gaming won't produce high temps (usage on CPU will sit below 50% or even 25% as games still mostly load up one big thread and a few lighter ones) but some (related) situations certainly will.

TDP is an engineering spec, and is only somewhat related to real loads. You will almost certainly never see that full number from any game, or most other software.

That's the short answer. Should you be looking for something more in-depth, I can try to dig up a link or two.

The shorter answer is: If you want to get the expected performance out of these CPUs, you will need 150W sustained cooling capacity, and then some. Overcomplicating this really isn't required, it is what it is. 150W TDP for max turbo means you need to dissipate it to get it. You need more, because the heat transfer is far from optimal.

 

[RandallFlagg]

that TDP by intel cpu comet lake and rocket lake, right now is still make me very confused...... TDp 125w or 65w is it real load watt on all pc games......??

The TDP intel normally releases is the average power/heat dissipation over a time range. On K-series chips that's 28 seconds, on non-K I think it's 14s. Power can spike above the TDP rating within that time frame to provide a quick turbo, but in my experience at stock setting it will only last about 6-8 seconds, then it will drop clock to keep the 28s average down.

There is also a max power draw during turbo setting, which is what most people talk about since it's > the average it is allowed to draw over the time range (called Tau).

I did not have any issue at all using a $20 150W air cooler on totally stock 10850K 125W TDP CPU.

You can power unlock these settings and let the CPU turbo 100% of the time, or any time frame / power limit you like. That is where you start to need to tune the power delivery to what your cooling solution can handle.