Intel Core i5-12600K

[R0H1T]

It's been known, at least to me, for some time now that Intel are extremely efficient in gaming (the 11th gen notwithstanding, those are trash). But for some reason, the internet is full of comments like "only 5% more performance in 1440p while consuming 100% watts", completely neglecting the fact that the cpus dont actually consume that much in gaming

Right & that goes for AMD as well ~ because CPU's actually don't consume that much in gaming anyway, especially wrt to the total system power consumption. So even if Intel CPU's are 50% more efficient in gaming, the numbers aren't that much of an issue unless you're OCing or overvolting your CPUs into insane territory.

Let me put it in another way ~ when talking about gaming, any "gaming" really, you should pay attention to the GPU numbers!

 

[fevgatos]

Single threaded testing shows a different story on TPU. Maybe ask @W1zzard to stop making things up.
View attachment 223975

That's not gaming though, and the efficiency difference here is miniscule.

There are a bunch of gaming efficiency reviews around, and the 12600k smokes everything, so why do you have to resort to lying? I don't get it, what's the point? Who are you trying to convince? People that don't know? Why? Are you trying to mislead them to make the wrong purchasing decision? What do you gain out of that? I'm sorry, but it blows my mind how people can just lie like that in a public forum about freely available data, and it always happen in favor of one particular company....what the heck is going on?

 

[The King]

That's not gaming though, and the efficiency difference here is miniscule.

There are a bunch of gaming efficiency reviews around, and the 12600k smokes everything, so why do you have to resort to lying? I don't get it, what's the point? Who are you trying to convince? People that don't know? Why? Are you trying to mislead them to make the wrong purchasing decision? What do you gain out of that? I'm sorry, but it blows my mind how people can just lie like that in a public forum about freely available data, and it always happen in favor of one particular company....what the heck is going on?

• New LGA1700 motherboards required
• Some workloads get scheduled onto wrong cores
• Energy efficiency worse than AMD Zen 3
• No CPU cooler included

Intel Core i5-12600K Review - Winning Price/Performance

The Core i5-12600K is the price/performance king in the Intel Alder Lake lineup. With its competitive pricing of $300, it's a clear winner against AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X and faster than even the 5800X in many applications and games. This is the gaming CPU you want.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[fevgatos]

Right & that goes for AMD as well ~ because CPU's actually don't consume that much in gaming anyway, especially wrt to the total system power consumption. So even if Intel CPU's are 50% more efficient in gaming, the numbers aren't that much of an issue unless you're OCing or overvolting your CPUs into insane territory.

Let me put it in another way ~ when talking about gaming, any "gaming" really, you should pay attention to the GPU numbers!

Well, according to igorslab testing, alder lake is

1) WAY (and I mean WAY) faster in a HUGE number of productivity applications, like autocad / inventor / premiere / photoshop / transcoding / exporting / solidworks and a number of scientific applications.

2) It is WAY more efficient in all of the above. Again, huge efficiency difference.

3) It is faster in gaming

4) It's also WAY more efficient in gaming

5) They only lose, in terms of both performance and efficiency to rendering mainly.

So if you are working for Disney and the likes, zen 3 is still the way to go. For everything else, the choice is pretty obvious, and I have no idea why people are making shit up to convince unaware buyers into a wrong decision.

• New LGA1700 motherboards required
• Some workloads get scheduled onto wrong cores
• Energy efficiency worse than AMD Zen 3
• No CPU cooler included

Intel Core i5-12600K Review - Winning Price/Performance

The Core i5-12600K is the price/performance king in the Intel Alder Lake lineup. With its competitive pricing of $300, it's a clear winner against AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X and faster than even the 5800X in many applications and games. This is the gaming CPU you want.

www.techpowerup.com

Did you look at the actual results? Here you go

That 0.2 kJ makes all the difference, doesn't it?

 

[HD64G]

There is no difference in power draw in game. Stop making shit up

Nice find! As for the platform cost I can feel a silence from your side...

 

[The King]

Did you look at the actual results? Here you go

That 0.2 kJ makes all the difference, doesn't it?

That is a heavily MT benchmark CB Cinebench. The results of which has no relevants to gaming power usage.

Single threaded power consumption results will have a bigger impact on games. hence I posted the Super Pi chart single thread test.
Hope it all makes sense to you know.

The statement that Alder Lake is less efficient it true even if its by 0.2kJ Has the user that posted that was abused by other users on this forum has spreading lies.
I have reported the matter to the Mods. Take care.

 

[fevgatos]

Nice find! As for the platform cost I can feel a silence from your side...

No point addressing 15 different things at the same time. Are we done with the efficiency argument? Do you agree that you were wrong and alder lake are as efficient in gaming and more efficient in productivity than zen 3? If yes, okay, ill move on the platform

Yes the total cost of ownership is higher between a 12600k and a 5600x, but they got released literally 2 days ago, with no b760 mobos out yet. The heck do you expect? Do you remember the platform cost of the zen 3 when they released? The 5600x alone was freequently above 400!! And what is the actual cost of ownership, even with todays price? A very capable DDR4 z690 costs 200€. So how much are you saving from the mobo? 50€? 70€ if you stretching? So what does the 12600k offer you for that 50-70€? Way higher longevity, both in gaming and in productivity. I mean it IS a way better CPU, paying 70€ for that is worth it, no?

That is a heavily MT benchmark CB Cinebench. The results of which has no relevants to gaming power usage.

Single threaded power consumption results will have a bigger impact on games. hence I posted the Super Pi chart single thread test.
Hope it all makes sense to you know. Take care.

The statement that Alder Lake is less efficient it true even if its by 0.2kJ Has the user that posted that was abused by other users on this forum has spreading lies.

If his statement about power usage was true then his statement that there is no difference in performance was wrong, since there was a difference in the very picture he himself posted, the 12600k was actually faster in gaming I'm sorry, you CANT have your cake and eat it too.

Does this have any relevance to gaming power usage?

 

[Flanker]

lol I feel kinda dumb to realize it this late, but looks like for playing at 60Hz VSync, any i5/Ryzen 5 will do, the rest goes to GPU money when the prices are no longer crazy

 

[fevgatos]

lol I feel kinda dumb to realize it this late, but looks like for playing at 60Hz VSync, any i5/Ryzen 5 will do, the rest goes to GPU money when the prices are no longer crazy

If you activate RT and want a minimum of 60 fps under every circumstance, a 11600k barely gets there. It's hovering around the 60-65 fps in the very busy scenes of the city, running with 3333c12 ram. With looser ram it can't actually hold a minimum of 60

 

[Pumper]

Edit : So, I did not notice this before but the DDR5 12900K is notably more efficient than the DDR4 based variants. About 15% more efficient than the DDR4 with the same 241/241 PL1/PL2 power settings.

No it's not, it's completely the opposite. The chart is FPS/W, not W/FPS

Right now in Australia the 5600X is A$100 cheaper, and the X570s are also significantly cheaper than the Z690s.

Let's not pretend that Zen3 launched at MSRP, ok? The 5600X lowest retail prices were over 600€ at one point in EU and went down to sub 350€ only 6-7 weeks after launch, and reached the 310€ MSRP only half a year after release.

 

[kmetek]

here 400€

 

[RandallFlagg]

lol I feel kinda dumb to realize it this late, but looks like for playing at 60Hz VSync, any i5/Ryzen 5 will do, the rest goes to GPU money when the prices are no longer crazy

Anything above that red line is too slow to keep up with my monitor's refresh rate at 1440p - and this is just avg, not a particularly new game either.

You simply picked a game that is GPU bound mostly, with a 3080 that TPU uses.

However, correct that this doesn't yet mean much to those who have lesser GPUs. If one keeps their CPU for more than a year or two though, it's probably going to mean a lot when next gen GPUs come out.

What's more amazing to me are charts like this one. This is a 12600K keeping pace with a 5950X on a code recompile.

A 12900K smokes 5950X by more than 15%, at least in Visual Studio (which I use).

 

[HD64G]

No point addressing 15 different things at the same time. Are we done with the efficiency argument? Do you agree that you were wrong and alder lake are as efficient in gaming and more efficient in productivity than zen 3? If yes, okay, ill move on the platform

Yes the total cost of ownership is higher between a 12600k and a 5600x, but they got released literally 2 days ago, with no b760 mobos out yet. The heck do you expect? Do you remember the platform cost of the zen 3 when they released? The 5600x alone was freequently above 400!! And what is the actual cost of ownership, even with todays price? A very capable DDR4 z690 costs 200€. So how much are you saving from the mobo? 50€? 70€ if you stretching? So what does the 12600k offer you for that 50-70€? Way higher longevity, both in gaming and in productivity. I mean it IS a way better CPU, paying 70€ for that is worth it, no?

I didn't write about efficiency in productivity at all. Those CPUs aren't bought as productivity ones and no matter what 5600X is ultra efficient in all workloads. So, for gamers, the difference in 1080P performance with an over $1000 GPU is 10% maybe? So, for budget gamers with a $500 GPU will drop to less than 5% most probably. I wouldn't buy a platform that costs more, and a CPU than needs a cooler to work with (a 30$ at least which makes the difference to build a pc between those 2 over 100$ for less than 5% gaming performance difference). Try to argue with that now.

 

[fevgatos]

I didn't write about efficiency in productivity at all. Those CPUs aren't bought as productivity ones and no matter what 5600X is ultra efficient in all workloads. So, for gamers, the difference in 1080P performance with an over $1000 GPU is 10% maybe? So, for budget gamers with a $500 GPU will drop to less than 5% most probably. I wouldn't buy a platform that costs more, and a CPU than needs a cooler to work with (a 30$ at least which makes the difference to build a pc between those 2 over 100$ for less than 5% gaming performance difference). Try to argue with that now.

Your argument would also apply to the 10400f. Why the heck would you buy a 5600x when the 10400f costs half and has similar performance with a 500$ GPU (what gpu is that today, a 3060?). The answer is simple. Future proofing. While the 10400f would perform similarly with a 3060, 1 or 2 years down the road you might upgrade that 3060 and your CPU is now the bottleneck, meaning it needs an upgrade. It's the same thing now with the 5600x. It will be cheaper today but youll pay more down the line cause youll need an upgrade sooner.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This gets stupid.

If your #1 use is gaming, let us assume for example you game 8 hours a day 365 days a year. And you pick something that uses an extra 20W of power.

That's 0.16 KWH of power per day, or 58KWH per year.

The average cost of electricity in the USA is currently 12.55c / KWH.

That's $7.25c per year for the average US household. If you game 8 hours constantly 365 days a year. I game way too much I think but I believe it's more like 2 hours a day not 8.

Just stupid waste of time to discuss it.

 

[Turmania]

I think there should be another review in regards to power consumption during gaming... as well as boost frequencies chart like there was with ryzen cpu reviews.

 

[Vayra86]

Is 12600K with a high end DDR4 maybe faster than with DDR5?

I think its non issue in real life use. By the time affordable DDR5 that is fast is mainstream you're a gen further in time.

ADL is a nice first shot at big little, proving the technology can do more than what Intel used to do. It opens new ways to direct power where its needed most, adds flexibility. But its also an early adopter gen. Both for new DDR and for the arch. It won't gain its best numbers in this gen.

This gets stupid.

If your #1 use is gaming, let us assume for example you game 8 hours a day 365 days a year. And you pick something that uses an extra 20W of power.

That's 0.16 KWH of power per day, or 58KWH per year.

The average cost of electricity in the USA is currently 12.55c / KWH.

That's $7.25c per year for the average US household. If you game 8 hours constantly 365 days a year. I game way too much I think but I believe it's more like 2 hours a day not 8.

Just stupid waste of time to discuss it.

The efficiency AND the gaming performance are a strange beast. I don't think personally, anyone is even half serious about the cost of electricity wrt a CPU TDP/load wattage. What I rather think, and I say this because that is also my personal experience over all these years, is that temperature is a performance limiter, and it rapidly adds noise + expenses on extra cooling to your build.

The fact is, ANY application, at ANY given time, can present a type of load to a CPU that puts it in maximum gear. With the strong improvements to multi threading and scheduling, this is only more likely to happen as time progresses. We see it, too. Its historical fact, as well. I know I ran a 3570K a few years ago and it would readily use more power than it did when I bought it, even under the same OC. Why? Simple, applications utilize cpu cycles better, and they need more of it, as GPUs get faster.

So yes, I completely, totally understand people are ready and willing to mix up the worst case energy metrics with their personal take on how the CPU could possibly run their games or applications. Its what I would do. You just WANT to be able to run the CPU in the red and not smell burnt electronics.

And power, is temperature. We know these CPUs can push 241W, and we know what kind of heat they produce in that case. Also, the argument applies universally. AMD's Ryzen gets hot too, but its not quite as toasty nor has such a horrible inefficiency at the top end.

When AMD produced hotter GPUs, I was staying away too. Now that Nvidia produces Samsung 8nm Ampere GPUs, I'm staying away too, and if any GPU would become cost effective in some way, I'd prefer 7nm TSMC any day of the week, yes I'd even sacrifice RTX for it without blinking twice. The fact still remains that on hard efficiency, Intel still loses node-wise to AMD/TSMC 7nm, which is a node already in refinement too. And these things do count. The silicon is the key differentiator, especially when competing architectures share the majority of perks.

Your argument would also apply to the 10400f. Why the heck would you buy a 5600x when the 10400f costs half and has similar performance with a 500$ GPU (what gpu is that today, a 3060?). The answer is simple. Future proofing. While the 10400f would perform similarly with a 3060, 1 or 2 years down the road you might upgrade that 3060 and your CPU is now the bottleneck, meaning it needs an upgrade. It's the same thing now with the 5600x. It will be cheaper today but youll pay more down the line cause youll need an upgrade sooner.

Unlikely. GPUs may get faster, but demands in games on that GPU also increase, while the CPU demands tend to remain stagnant until the consoles push up the mainstream again.

I have yet to see a single core limitation for gaming on my 8700K. And that's with an efficiency oriented OC, I run 4.6 Ghz... Sure I can fire up CS GO and maybe I'll have a few dozen more frames above 600... but who cares? ALL CPUs even from yesteryear are more than capable for gaming, they have the core count and the IPC, and the current console crop won't be changing soon either.

 

[HD64G]

Your argument would also apply to the 10400f. Why the heck would you buy a 5600x when the 10400f costs half and has similar performance with a 500$ GPU (what gpu is that today, a 3060?). The answer is simple. Future proofing. While the 10400f would perform similarly with a 3060, 1 or 2 years down the road you might upgrade that 3060 and your CPU is now the bottleneck, meaning it needs an upgrade. It's the same thing now with the 5600x. It will be cheaper today but youll pay more down the line cause youll need an upgrade sooner.

I can see you find another CPU not released to make an argument about future buyers. So, for now I am correct I suppose?

Firstly wait for 10400F and its pricing while AMD can lower their prices too until then and make AM4 platform even less expensive. Moreover, anyone on a budget will never buy top GPU or CPU, so your argument is invalid.

The ones in need of top-tier CPU or GPU will buy the i7/9 or R7/9. And there we get in a totally another conversation about pros and cons.

 

[fevgatos]

I can see you find another CPU not released to make an argument about future buyers. So, for now I am correct I suppose?

Firstly wait for 10400F and its pricing while AMD can lower their prices too until then and make AM4 platform even less expensive. Moreover, anyone on a budget will never buy top GPU or CPU, so your argument is invalid.

The ones in need of top-tier CPU or GPU will buy the i7/9 or R7/9. And there we get in a totally another conversation about pros and cons.

What? The 10400f has been around for 2 years at ~140€. What are youtalking about?

Elektronik & mehr online kaufen | ALTERNATE Online Shop

Online einkaufen beim Testsieger: Mehrfacher Versender des Jahres, Sieger im Webshop-Test! Tolle Neuheiten & Bestseller, ausgezeichneter Service!

www.alternate.de

Unlikely. GPUs may get faster, but demands in games on that GPU also increase, while the CPU demands tend to remain stagnant until the consoles push up the mainstream again.

I have yet to see a single core limitation for gaming on my 8700K. And that's with an efficiency oriented OC, I run 4.6 Ghz... Sure I can fire up CS GO and maybe I'll have a few dozen more frames above 600... but who cares? ALL CPUs even from yesteryear are more than capable for gaming, they have the core count and the IPC, and the current console crop won't be changing soon either.

Are you saying that a CPU will run any GPU regardless? No, at some point it will start bottlenecking, no matter when that time is. So a CPU that is , let's say 15% faster, can support a 15% faster GPU than the one that bottlenecks your 8700k.

I did have the 8700k, and yes its still a beast, but there are games out right now that it bottlenecks a high end card, unless you heavy tune it and memory oc the crap out of it.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Your argument would also apply to the 10400f. Why the heck would you buy a 5600x when the 10400f costs half and has similar performance with a 500$ GPU (what gpu is that today, a 3060?). The answer is simple. Future proofing. While the 10400f would perform similarly with a 3060, 1 or 2 years down the road you might upgrade that 3060 and your CPU is now the bottleneck, meaning it needs an upgrade. It's the same thing now with the 5600x. It will be cheaper today but youll pay more down the line cause youll need an upgrade sooner.

So we should only buy i9's ,are you a sales rep.

Different people have different needs and priorities ,I know people happily gaming on Fx8350s and Dell's, to assume everyone just surf's and casual games is not right, as is thinking you know what everyone else should buy.

Have you looked at the CPU charts above 1080p , the CPU is just not that important, and at 4k well.

That upgrade itch is enthusiasts only, everyone else just buys when it's broke or nicked.

I am finding the comedy lier comments a bit offensive , people can't see that despite the facts,, ADL just isn't a clear and easy winner, not for everyone.

 

[sepheronx]

So we should only buy i9's ,are you a sales rep.

Different people have different needs and priorities ,I know people happily gaming on Fx8350s and Dell's, to assume everyone just surf's and casual games is not right, as is thinking you know what everyone else should buy.

Have you looked at the CPU charts above 1080p , the CPU is just not that important, and at 4k well.

That upgrade itch is enthusiasts only, everyone else just buys when it's broke or nicked.

I am finding the comedy lier comments a bit offensive , people can't see that despite the facts,, ADL just isn't a clear and easy winner, not for everyone.

I play games. I mostly read on the net or I attend to my mining rigs. I am more than happy to play video games on a RX 580 and or GTX 970. I have played them for so long. I even connect it to my 4K tv to play retro games on the big screen. Looks good, plays good and is it running all top of the line equipment? Nope. Older V2 or V3 Xeons that I can pick up for mid double digit prices. Ram that is ECC which is cheaper to get. Does the job just fine.

This is purely enthusiasts. People were editing 4K videos before these processors came out. Actually, that reminds me, isn't video rendering programs now taking advantage more so of the GPU than CPU's now?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I play games. I mostly read on the net or I attend to my mining rigs. I am more than happy to play video games on a RX 580 and or GTX 970. I have played them for so long. I even connect it to my 4K tv to play retro games on the big screen. Looks good, plays good and is it running all top of the line equipment? Nope. Older V2 or V3 Xeons that I can pick up for mid double digit prices. Ram that is ECC which is cheaper to get. Does the job just fine.

This is purely enthusiasts. People were editing 4K videos before these processors came out. Actually, that reminds me, isn't video rendering programs now taking advantage more so of the GPU than CPU's now?

That's eventually where Intel and AMD might come unstuck soon , because if it's working most won't be buying, my laptop still is my go-to and it's a 1080p 2060 8750h so not epic but it's not getting swapped for a while yet.

 

[Why_Me]

So we should only buy i9's ,are you a sales rep.

Different people have different needs and priorities ,I know people happily gaming on Fx8350s and Dell's, to assume everyone just surf's and casual games is not right, as is thinking you know what everyone else should buy.

Have you looked at the CPU charts above 1080p , the CPU is just not that important, and at 4k well.

That upgrade itch is enthusiasts only, everyone else just buys when it's broke or nicked.

I am finding the comedy lier comments a bit offensive , people can't see that despite the facts,, ADL just isn't a clear and easy winner, not for everyone.

This cpu or an i7-12700F paired with a B660 board and DDR4 should do fine for gaming.

Best buy incoming: sub-US$200 Intel Core i5-12400F beats the Ryzen 5 5600X

For now, the i5-12600K is the value king, but, if you can wait for the i5-12400F releasing in two months, you could get roughly the same performance for sub-US$200.

www.notebookcheck.net

 

[fevgatos]

So we should only buy i9's ,are you a sales rep.

Different people have different needs and priorities ,I know people happily gaming on Fx8350s and Dell's, to assume everyone just surf's and casual games is not right, as is thinking you know what everyone else should buy.

Have you looked at the CPU charts above 1080p , the CPU is just not that important, and at 4k well.

That upgrade itch is enthusiasts only, everyone else just buys when it's broke or nicked.

I am finding the comedy lier comments a bit offensive , people can't see that despite the facts,, ADL just isn't a clear and easy winner, not for everyone.

I never said or suggested you should buy an i9.

Yeh, your friend might happily game with an fx8350, but at SOME point he won't happily game on it anymore. That point is sooner for the fx8350 compared to let's say, a 4790k.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I never said or suggested you should buy an i9.

Yeh, your friend might happily game with an fx8350, but at SOME point he won't happily game on it anymore. That point is sooner for the fx8350 compared to let's say, a 4790k.

The 4790k is two generations newer, so it should.

@Why_Me I agree, I just don't then agree that it's the only CPU worth buying.

Obviously if the price is right, I wouldn't pay scalpers prices for example.