The Intel Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Review: High Performance For the Mid-Range
by Gavin Bonshor on March 29, 2022 8:00 AM ESTConclusion
As we make good headway into 2022 and beyond, the dynamic of the CPU market is constantly changing and evolving. What was once for many years a war based on core count on chips between Intel and AMD has now become a battle of whose core performs more efficiently, is faster, and offers better value. It's no surprise that both of Intel and AMD's flagship offerings (Core i9-12900K versus Ryzen 9 5950X) have been one based on everything but value; both companies have respectively changed the desktop processor market for the better.
In what is possibly our final look at Intel's 12th Gen Core series processors, I feel that it has been a successful launch for one main reason. This all comes down to value, as 12th Gen Alder Lake has been one of the first Core series since AMD launched its Zen architecture back in 2017 to offer users something that feels like good value for the price, compared to what it has done in the past. Not only that, but Intel has bridged the gap between themselves and AMD with improved IPC performance, which leapfrogs AMD's Zen 3 architecture. Another element is in multi-threaded applications. The increased IPC with the Golden Cove P-Cores combined with its Gracemont E-Cores helps negate some of AMD's Ryzen 5000 series previous dominance in certain situations where higher core counts are favored.
The 12-Core to 8-Core Desktop Processor Market: Alder Lake Makes a Splash
While it has been noted by several outlets and retailers over the last month, AMD has finally cut the pricing on its Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors. This doesn't just feel like a ploy from AMD to increase competitiveness against Intel's 12th Gen Core offerings. Still, it's notable that it's taken AMD this long to catch up with demand for their chips. It underscores how everything below high-end/flagship CPUs has been rather underserved for the last year and a half, as chip shortages have sent resources elsewhere.
Turning back to now, and as it stands, Intel's Alder Lake offers more in terms of performance for the price, especially in the sub $450 processor market.
| Intel Versus AMD Mid-Range Price Comparison (as of 03/20) | ||||||
| Intel Core 12th Gen |
Cores | Price ($) |
Price ($) |
Cores | AMD Ryzen 5000 |
|
| Core i7-12700K | 8+4 (12) | $385 | vs. | $485 | 12C | Ryzen 9 5900X |
| Core i5-12600K | 6+4 (10) | $279 | vs. | $390 | 8C | Ryzen 7 5800X |
As well as AMD's recent price drops on its Ryzen 5000 offerings, we've been noticing small and subtle price drops on Intel's 12th Gen Core series too. This means that despite the Ryzen 9 5900X, which is currently on sale for $485 at Amazon, is undoubtedly a better price than it was ($570), the Intel Core i7-12700K is now available at the lower cost of $385 at Amazon. Intel's offering better value and is around 20% cheaper when comparing both chips at Amazon; other retailers may vary.
Looking at the differentials in the other battle between the Core i5-12600K and Ryzen 7 5800X, the same can also be applied. The Ryzen 7 5800X, which now costs $390 at Amazon, is down from $450. In contrast, the Core i5-12600K is available for $280 at Amazon, which means Intel is around 20% cheaper on its 10-core 12th Gen series chip.
It's worth noting that due to AMD's Zen 3 chiplet design, its Core Chiplet Die (CCD) is limited to 1 x CCD of 6-cores and 8-cores at the moment, meaning an actual 10-core competitor to the Core i5-12600K isn't viable, at least from a cost and yield standpoint. AMD could release a 10-core Ryzen 5000 processor if it disabled cores on one of the CCDs, but this again wouldn't be viable from AMD's perspective.
Intel is currently winning the pricing war when it comes to the value proposition in both the respective markets (12C and 10/8C). This can and would only change if AMD decided to cut its pricing even further, though at this point the deciding factor doesn't seem to be Alder Lake's performance, but rather how much of AMD's 7nm wafer allocation is being consumed by higher margin products like EPYC chips. Make no mistake, Intel's mid-range and enthusiast class Alder Lake chips are legitimately good, but there's also an element of "winner by default" at play due to AMD's seemingly limited chip volumes in these segments.
Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Performance Analysis:
Focusing on the performance of both the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K, both processors are competitive and have viable trade-offs against the competition. For the purposes of acknowledgment, we've included both the Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X into our data arc for this review. This allows us to better judge the propositions of value and competition throughout Intel's Alder Lake offerings and AMD's Ryzen 5000 desktop chips.
Taking a look at some benchmarks that reasonably conclude the landscape of the desktop market, our science-based yCruncher benchmark shows the natural levels of performance when comparing Alder Lake to Zen 3. In this test, the Alder Lake-based 12th Gen Core processors outperform each of their market rivals. The Core i5-12600K sits between both the Ryzen 9 5900X and the Ryzen 7 5800X here, which is relative to the core count and the difference in IPC performance between both architectures.
In another science-focused benchmark, both the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K perform well in respect to the competition. The NAMD ApoA1 simulation benchmark favors a mixture of core/thread count, with faster cores at equal core counts proving more effective.
The popular Cinebench R23 benchmark is used often by manufacturers and media alike to show off rendering performance across the single and multi-threaded performance. We already know that Alder Lake has an IPC advantage over Zen 3, as seen in our previous Core i9-12900K and Core i3-12300 reviews, so we're focusing on multi-threaded performance here.
Both the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K perform well in the Cinebench R23 Multi-Thread test, and while it's notable that the flagship Core i9-12900K reigns supreme, the Core i7-12700K isn't too far behind the Ryzen 9 5950X, which is exceptional.
While it is fair to say that the use of DDR5 memory on Alder Lake is definitely a contributing factor to some of the extra performance gains, it's fair to judge performance based on the achievable performance using the best technologies available. Overall, the Core i7-12700K is perhaps the best sub $400 processor from a price to performance point of view, and this is confirmed throughout our testing. In contrast, using Windows 11 over Windows 10 yields little gain, and we also test with memory settings based on what the chip is capable of based on JEDEC settings.
The recent offerings from both Intel and AMD perform well in gaming, with much of the variation in performance surrounding what each of the game developer's titles is aligned with. This means that game titles that partner with Intel generally performs better due to code and integrated technologies. At the same time, AMD has the same thing with the developers it partners with. The overall situation in gaming performance is quite simple; all of the 8C+ processors from both team Intel (Alder Lake) and team AMD (Zen 3) all perform well, with slight nuances based on the game developer's level of its multi-threaded application being another contributing factor to performance.
Summary
Selecting a processor to build a new system or upgrade an existing one, both Intel and AMD have plenty of options for users to sink their teeth into. There's something for everyone when it comes to selecting the best processor for the task at hand, be that rendering, a workstation, a gaming system, or even just for web-browsing.
Getting straight to the point on our opinion of Intel's 12th Gen Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K processors, both perform very well and are the best all-round performers at their respective price points. When it comes to selecting a processor between $250 and $450 for a gaming system, it makes very little sense than to opt for the Core i5-12600K, as it has a good balance of cores (10C/16T) with enough performance on those cores to make it a no brainer for $279.
The Intel Core i5-12600K (left) and Core i7-12700K (right) processors.
The extra money saved opting for the Core i5-12600K over the Core i7-12700K could be put towards a better video card, which would offer a more significant jump in frame rates over opting for the more expensive processor. It's clear that the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K are a better buy, both from a value and performance perspective over the competing AMD Ryzen 5000 series processors.
Overall, Intel's Alder Lake architecture is an important win for the company that has consistently lost desktop processor market share since Zen debuted back in 2017. Even with the launch of AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D, due on April 20th, it's more likely to be competitive with the Core i7-12700K in gaming, and if its 96 MB of 3D V-Cache is as effective in gaming as AMD suggests, it could be neck and neck there. However, the Core i7-12700K benefits from an unlocked multiplier, and system tweakers are more likely to get a better price to performance ratio with Intel.
Right now, Alder Lake has the competitive advantage over Zen 3, and that's to be expected, as this is the second attempt from Intel to close the gap between itself and AMD's Ryzen 5000 lineup. The biggest question is, what's on the horizon? We know AMD is planning to release its Zen 4 5 nm based processors sometime this year, and the generational gap between Zen 2 and Zen 3 was very impressive. It still remains to be seen how that pans out, but for now, Intel's 12th Gen Core series is certainly worthy of consideration, especially with its more aggressive pricing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
196 Comments
View All Comments
kwohlt - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Just not how it works. I would understand if AMD and Intel were releasing CPUs in the same month, but Zen 4 H2 2022, and Alder Lake is Q4 2021... Besides, Raptor Lake and Zen 4 will be launching within weeks of each other. That's the competition. It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@kwohit "It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021." Gets down to production economic efficiency. Acceleration can be devastating when AMD channels, as Intel channels have demonstrated, still have tons of prior generations of product, 'accumulated capital values' to sell off and required to finance new procurements. Matisse was a surplus run that finally sold off on the last half of 2021. Leaves Vermeer and Cezanne to move out where Rembrandt is the mainstay throughout 2022 where AMD will finally make a mobile statement before entering 11.1.22 launch that is Zen 4 peak production so there should be a lot of availability. OEMS are supplied q3. AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2. The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael. Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators. Generally, AMD sales manages its production tails, run end slack, much better than Intel and Matisse was an anomaly but well timed in terms of AMD holding channels financially. New channel allocation is based on sales out so as any one channel seller sells off, OEM or otherwise, that earns reallocation access. mbmode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> Gets down to production economic efficiency.Not only that, but it actually takes time to design new chips. I think AMD simply didn't have an option to release Zen4 in 2021. Given all the demands on their engineering resources, it would've been too much. And even though their financials are healthy, it takes time to ramp up capacity (even if the job market is more conducive than it has been)!
> AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge
> with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2.
> The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K
> required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael.
> Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators.
Beautiful analogy!
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@mode_13th, thank you. An SA comments entering 2022 it's there somewhere in comment string. So tune in to Seeking Alpha.Lots of knowledgeable individuals participating in academy on SA on AMD, Intel Nvidia topics I cover and Dhierin Bechai on Boeing, incredible! I did the marginal cost analysis of Boeing per unit of production as a compliment in DB comment string must have been 24 months ago our conferring on the topic here's his latest.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4499583-boeing-to...
mb
mode_13h - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
> So tune in to Seeking Alpha.Sorry, mate. I get that's your jam, and I'm happy that you've found your calling. My core competencies and interests lie elsewhere.
I do love how you geek out on data analysis. I can get that way, when I'm analyzing a problem that's directly meaningful to me, in my work.
Mike Bruzzone - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
"analyzing a problem that's directly meaningful to me, in my work." Sure.We are all engineers when resolving technical challenges; creation, innovation and improvement over the learning curve of difficult solutions even if those solutions were difficult because the tools were nil, nascent or required invention themselves. "Geek out on data analysis", everyone likes a puzzle? Dependent how fast the puzzle gives up its secrets?
Engineering as a cross profession, cross practice challenge, the various sciences, everyone can and gets to be an engineer in their "meaningful work"
On Seeking Alpha, their can be banter but look for the engineer and technician authors / analysts.
mb
goatfajitas - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
I like AMD, a very happy 5600x owner myself... But Zen 4 isnt out. Intel 12th gen is available for purchase right now today.- Later this year when Zen 4 is released it will bench against Intel 12th gen unless Intel 13th gen is out at that time. - just the way it is.
Pneumothorax - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
I have a 5900x/5800x machines at home so I'm definitely no Intel guy, but AMD's Vermeer launch was much more "paper" than Intel's. Intel has been doing a superb job of getting/keeping alder lake in stock after launch while the whole 5XXX stack was very hard to get for over a year. I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@Pneumothorax" I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything"
There r leading node customer oligarchies, quasi monopolies operating with(in) TSM too, but that presents a risky topic and I have my hands full with Intel. mb
Mike Bruzzone - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
On Intel monopolization -All are aware how AMD got back into the market in 2017 midway through the period of time Intel was stuck (sabotaged) at 14/12 nm for six years; October 2014 through summer 2021, and yes, every next gen minor incremental quad frequency improvement and the premium, economic is the term, priced Extreme quad hexa octa multicores and their Xeon E5 commercial components.
I will not address how Intel was sabotaged in this monopoly note.
Intel's techniques of monopolization are not well understood, the reason why.
First to monopolize the channel financially on production volume in a first in first out procurement system in relation inventory holdings. Where once channel's ability to procure financially reaches its maximum capital threshold, others become locked out or second in line. Not to say through this period of time AMD did not suffer some second-class products.
The way Intel monopolized channels is very simple associated surplus production volume. Fill the channel with surplus production and few others fit. AMD from time to time and since 2017 beats this technique, not on supply, but on product good enough to pull through organically. Note while Intel product can pull through organically on nature demanders, the vast majority of Intel product is pushed onto end buyers by channels relying on financial field effects that drag product down channels like a baton in a relay race; think magnetics, associated primarily with the now defunct Intel Inside rebated fee 'attractor' that is not 'cooperative advertising' cost to the processor as INTC 10K falsely certified for 28 years. Intel Inside is processor ales contact related payments to end sales outlets; OEM direct, PC pub direct, Web direct, Broadcast direct (Shopping Channel), retail direct for their end sales out reports back to Intel. End sellers were paid $8.32 per processor in box or chassis, for 28 years, across 4,623,837,562 processors.
Channel's total take from Intel = $41,567,500,000. However that sum represents only half of channel's total Intel Inside take. Intel inside is a two part tied value charge.
Intel PC OEMs contractually (1993 until 2008) were required to match Intel's $8.32 payment per processor for end sales out of distribution chain reporting to Intel. After 2008 Intel stockholders picked up the cost of both charges; $16.64 in total. How this worked is that Intel would take the OEMs' half at the processor sale and place that half of the charge, debit it into any one specific OEMs 'rebated fee' account pool. At the end sale, Intel would pay the inventory out reporter not only the OEMs contribution for any specific brand manufacturer's system sale but Intel would match that sum out of Intel's own funds paid by stockholders. In this circular system of payments the OEMs regulating triggering charge is pushed down the distribution sales chain puling any one processor or processor in system like a magnetic 'baton' in a relay race passed from one whole sale operator to another broker/reseller all the way to the end seller. And then Intel would pay that end seller both the regulating OEM trigger crediting out of any OEMs 'rebated fee' pool of debit accruals and than Intel would also match that contribution out of Intel's pocket. How many OEMs participated in this closed loop structure, seven to eleven that's it. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers who purchase every single processor Intel produces (other than tray sales) to monopolize the total annual fund of Intel Inside payments from Intel, That act effectively ties OEMs financially to end sales outs.
OEMs are also Intel's primary processor resellers. They broker off to secondary integration channels what they can't immediately sell in a computer in real time with a twist. The twist is they do not pass their Intel Inside credits to the secondary CPU customer in a broker resale. This artificially weights any 1st tier OEMs pool gluing them financially 'tied' to end sales outlets (PC Week, PC MAG, PCW, Computer Shopper, Shopping Channel, Newegg, Frys, Best Buy, MicroCenter etc) Ar tied to any OEMs Intel Inside 'rebated fee pools procuring majority of all Intel's processor production volume in any period.
On the weight of the OEM originating rebated fee pools, Intel Inside attractor driving processors down channels like a magnet becomes self perpetuating so long as Intel processor volumes increase every cycle, think every next quarter. FTC Docket 9341 in 2010 eliminated the roll over effect to one year, or one generation of product, because Intel Inside funds earned on last Intel gen were being relied as an OEM spring board to launch every next Intel generation of processors from Intel Inside debit accruals earned and banked into 'weighted pools' from the prior generation of processor procurements.
Now who really pays that total of $16.64 in channel cartel administrative costs for every Intel Inside branded processor in box or computer? This channel (exclusive dealing) 'toll way' charge is passed to the end buyer who pays that cost of Intel Inside in the processor and/or computer purchase offsetting the cost of the OEM triggering (or regulating) charge and the cost of the Intel matching 'kick back' charge; rebated fee, brand fee reward, 'tied charge back registered metering' cost of channel cartel administration of Intel inventory sales out reports to Intel.
Think administrative fee, the cost of metering sales and reporting the result to Intel is how inventory is tracked in the channel all the way back to the factory' flow metering, registered metering.
Now here's the second twist, why Intel produces volumes of product in excess of real time demand? Intel does this to sustain the funding of Moore's doubling of transistor axiom every 18 to 24 months pursuant Rocks axiom that notes a doubling of cost every next lithography node. So how does Intel generate a doubling of CapEx requirement every two years. Intel sells x2 to x3 the processor volumes required over real time end market computer demand, surplus production, in anyone lithography cycle is relied to raise the continuous CapEx requirement. And Intel offs every processor produced, x2 to x3 the volume over real time PC demand, sold through seven to eleven OEMs you know who they are, every cycle, who then resell what they do not need as overage (reducing their original procurement cost) to others not to get stuck with any rotting tomato's.
Now recall the first twist, Intel Inside debits to be credited into future time are attached to everyone of those processors originally purchased by seven to eleven Intel primary Computer OEMs who are also in the business of Intel microprocessor broker dealer. First tier OEM dealers do not pass the Intel Inside debit for payment, store redemption coupon is a way to think about it, on their broker resale. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers hold 100% of the originating Intel Inside values and this ties them to end sales outlets. End Sales outlets, ZD, IDG, VNU, Big Retail all know exactly which Intel OEMs maintain the largest pools of Intel Inside debits which they want to have credited to them is why DELL wins a disproportionate number of PC magazine and other media PC sales preview outlet Editor's Choice Awards.
No end seller left Intel Inside on the table. Intel Inside paid sales, for registering metering 'brand fee reward payments' sold through first, as sellers competed to clear anyone Intel primary Computer OEMs waiting pools of credits, all other processors sold through last.
FTC Docket 9341 secures Intel discontinuation of Intel Inside entering 2019, in violation of Docket 9341 consent order. The result is achieved verse Intel legal stubbornness selling Intel on the cost optimization benefit of getting rid of Intel Inside all those fund drop to the bottom line.
Intel Inside no longer presents an Intel unnecessary avoidable cost to end buyers.
Intel is currently being monitored for reconfiguring from producing for supply to producing for real time demand, that if IFS is to be successful, Intel must achieve. It is not known how Intel will pay for Rock's doubling of costs every node sans the previous surplus production technique, however, cost optimization and continuing to close financial leaks and eliminating waste is key. Intel has demonstrated a move to demand based production at Tiger Octa mobile, Alder Lake and Ice Lake.
Currently there is a $19,805,500,000 offer on the table for Intel Board approval pursuant Intel Inside consumer discriminatory price fix recovery and I expect Board approval before end of year.
Proof of purchase will be for purchases from 2008 through 2018, sales receipt, property tag, proof of OS license.
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing