The Intel Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Review: High Performance For the Mid-Rangeby Gavin Bonshor on March 29, 2022 8:00 AM EST
Since Intel announced and launched its 12th Gen Core series of CPUs in to the market, we've reviewed both the flagship Core i9-12900K, as well as the entry-level (but still very capable) Core i3-12300 processors. Today, we're looking at the middle of the stack, with the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K both taking center stage.
Ever since AMD launched its Zen 3 architecture and its Ryzen 5000 series for desktop, Intel has been playing catch up in both performance and pricing. Intel's hybrid Alder Lake design is its second attempt (Rocket Lake) to dethrone Ryzen 5000 as the go-to processor for consumers building a high-end desktop system for gaming, content creation, and everything in between. It's time to see if the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K can finally level the playing field, if not outright give Intel an advantage in the always popular mid-range and enthusiast markets.
Below is a list of our detailed Intel Alder Lake and Z690 coverage:
- The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity
- The Intel Core i3-12300 Review: Quad-Core Alder Lake Shines
- Intel Architecture Day 2021: Alder Lake, Golden Cove, and Gracemont Detailed
- Intel Announces 12th Gen Core Alder Lake: 22 New Desktop-S CPUs, 8 New Laptop-H CPUs
- The Intel Z690 Motherboard Overview (DDR5): Over 50+ New Models
- The Intel Z690 Motherboard Overview (DDR4): Over 30+ New Models
As a quick recap, we've covered Alder Lake's dual architectural hybrid design in our Core i9-12900K review, including the differences between the P (performance) and E (efficiency cores). The P-cores are based on Intel's high-performing Golden Cove architecture, which provides solid single-threaded performance. Meanwhile, the Gracemont-based E-cores, although lower-performing on their own, are smaller and draw much less power, allowing Intel to pack them in to benefit multi-threaded workloads without blowing the chips' power and thermal budgets.
Intel 12th Gen Core i7 and Core i5 Series: For The Mid-Range & Enthusiasts
At the beginning of 2022, Intel unveiled 22 new Alder Lake Desktop-S processors to the market, with the K-series processors such as the Core i9-12900K, Core i7-12700K, and Core i5-12600K having been made available back in November 2021. Looking at Intel's 12th Gen Core i7 lineup, there are five SKUs in total, all of which are variants of the 12700 offering the same 8 P-cores and 4 E-cores at different clockspeeds and TDPs. Leading the group are the Core i7-12700K and i7-12700KF, which come with an unlocked multiplier and can be overclocked when used with a Z690 motherboard.
The Core i7-12700 is a base model with no overclocking support, while the Core i7-12700F is the same as the base model without the integrated Xe Iris graphics. The last of the Core i7 models is the i7-12700T, which has a lower base TDP of 35 W, with a turbo TDP of 180 W and a P-Core turbo of 4.7 GHz primarily designed for low powered systems.
|Intel 12th Gen Core, Alder Lake|
Moving onto the 12th gen Core i5 series, there's a total of nine SKUs, which is a large stack for the mid-range market. Prices range from $289 for the top SKU, the Core i5-12600K with an unlocked multiplier and full overclocking support, and the Core i5-12600KF ($264), which is the exact specification minus Intel's Xe integrated graphics.
Out of all of Intel's 12th Gen Core i5 series parts, the Core i5-12600K and i5-12600KF are the only two chips to include both P-Core (Golden Cove) E-Core (Gracemont) hybrid cores. They both feature six P-cores four E-cores, for a total of 16-threads. The rest of the Core i5 stack for Alder Lake includes only six P-cores based on Intel's Golden Cove architecture, foregoing the E-cores entirely.
There are three 'base' models of the Core i5, including the i5-12600, i5-12500, and i5-12400, with differences only in base frequency and turbo frequencies (and price), with just $31 separating them in 1K unit pricing. Intel also has three T series variants, including the Core i5-12600T, the i5-12500T, and i5-12400T, all with a base TDP of 35 W and a turbo TDP of 117 W. There's also an odd one out, the Core i5-12400F, which is the same specifications as the Core i5-12400 base model, but without integrated graphics.
Intel Laminar RM1 Stock CPU Cooler for non-K Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 processors
As we highlighted in our Core i3-12300 review, Intel has also refreshed its 'stock' coolers for the first time in what feels like an age. Accompanying all of Intel's 12th Gen Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 processors (not the K/KF SKUs) is the Intel Laminar RM1 stock CPU cooler, which has a revamped design over previous iterations of its stock cooler. The Laminar RM1 is constructed of a copper base with aluminum fins and is designed to support up to and including 65 W TDP processors.
The Intel Core i7-12700K & Core i5-12600K: Market Positioning and the Competition
For the first time since AMD released its Zen 3 based Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors, Intel has undoubtedly been playing catch up. Its 11th Gen Core (Rocket Lake) architecture bridged the gap somewhat, but as seen in our initial review of Alder Lake via our Core i9-12900K review, only with their latest generation of chips has Intel been able to leap-frog ahead of AMD at the top of the desktop CPU market.
Looking at where the 12th Gen Core i7-12700K slots in, it has 8+4 (12) cores for 20 threads, and as such, it competes against the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which has 12-Zen 3 cores and 24 threads. Especially following some very recent tightening of the market for AMD chips, the Core i7-12700K has become a much better deal on paper with a current selling price at Amazon of $400 versus the $480 that the Ryzen 9 5900X currently costs.
Intel Core i5-12600K (left) and Core i7-12700K (right) CPU-Z screenshots
The Core i5-12600K is slightly different, as it has two main rivals on the market, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with 8 cores and 16 threads for $390, and the Ryzen 5 5600X, which can be purchased at Amazon for $229 at present. In contrast, the Core i5-12600K has a hybrid 8+4 (12) core design for 16 threads, and it fits in between both of these in the market with a current selling price at Amazon of $279.
Despite many design differences between the aforementioned chips, including core count, thread count, architecture, and core structure, the only differences many are likely to care about are the performance and the price. Earlier this month AMD cut pricing on virtually all of its Ryzen 5000 line-up, which made things much more competitive when comparing Intel's 12th Gen Core MSRP versus AMD's Ryzen 5000's initial launch MSRP. However a very recent bounce in AMD chip prices has started to undo this.
Another variable to consider in this market segment is AMD's new Ryzen 7 5800X3D, with 3D V-Cache, which targets gamers, 8-cores, 16-threads, but it isn't overclockable. AMD intends to launch it on April 20th, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D will launch with an MSRP of $449. This roughly coincides in terms of pricing with its Ryzen 9 5900X, and is $50 more expensive than the Core i7-12700K, which benefits from more cores and faster cores...and it's overclockable.
Test Bed and Setup
Although there were some problems initially with the Intel Thread Director when using Windows 10 at the launch of Alder Lake, any core scheduling issues are entirely negated by using the latest Windows 11 operating system. The Intel Thread Director works in tandem with Alder Lake to assign the right P-cores and E-cores to different tasks based on the complexity and severity of the workload. We are also testing the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K with DDR5 memory at JEDEC specifications (DDR5-4800 CL40). We are also using Windows 11, which we are using now for CPU and motherboard reviews as we advance into the rest of 2022 and beyond.
For our testing, we are using the following:
|Alder Lake Test System (DDR5)|
|CPU||Core i5-12600K ($289)
6+4 Cores, 16 Threads
125W Base, 150W Turbo
Core i7-12700K ($409)
8+4 Cores, 20 Threads
125 W Base, 190 W Turbo
|Motherboard||MSI Z690 Carbon WI-FI|
|Cooling||MSI Coreliquid 360mm AIO|
|Storage||Crucial MX300 1TB|
|Power Supply||Corsair HX850|
|GPUs||NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti, Driver 496.49|
|Operating Systems||Windows 11 Up to Date|
All other chips for comparison were run as tests listed in our benchmark database, Bench, on Windows 10.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Gondalf - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - linkBeh! in short words Intel have the best 7nm (or 7nm equivalent) desktop cpu, this is pretty evident.
Same applies to Mobile parts obviously. AMD approach look like rudimentary and silicon hungry versus Intel big-little silicon.
We'll see on finer nodes next year or so. Still i have the idea that Intel will never be anymore behind AMD like in past years.
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - linkKeep in mind that Zen 4 is coming later this year and will make Alder Lake 2nd again. The flip/flop continues.
From a technology standpoint AMD has the best setup. They can just add chiplets or cores to increase multicore performance.
They have 90-95% of the performance for less than half, or in some cases, 1/3rd the power.
Stop trolling. It makes you look immature and childish.
DannyH246 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - linkYup. Completely agree, Intel are finally competitive with what? A 2yr old AMD product, but at triple the power. Yet some of the posters on here are acting like Intel are saviors who have finally returned to save us all from our PC ills. They forget that Intel literally screwed us all for a decade with high prices, feature lock outs, core counts limited to 4, new motherboards required every year, anti competitive behavior, and anti consumer practices. Why anyone would want Intel to return to the dominant position that they used to occupy is beyond me.
Khanan - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - linkFully agree.
lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - linkPretty delusional here -- AMD's whole plan with Bulldozer was to create vendor lock-in where you used an AMD GPU to accelerate floating point operations on an AMD CPU. Consumer-friendly to claim 4 cores are really 8? Thuban outperformed Piledriver until its instruction set finally was too limited years later. AMD just wanted a marketing point.
Also, how are you playing both narratives at once? Intel both wasn't willing to deliver more than 4 cores and has too high of power consumption in its parts with more than 4 cores? Which is it? Because it quite literally cannot be both.
Samus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - linkOMG people are still going on about the shared FPU BS.
It HAD to be that way. The entire modular architecture was built around sharing L2 and FPU's. There was nothing inherently wrong with this approach, except nobody optimized for it because it had never been done, so people like you freaked out. If you wanted your precious FPU's for each integer unit, buy something else...
Otritus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - linkIt did NOT have to be that way. AMD intentionally chose to share the fpu and cache creating a cpu that was abysmal in performance and efficiency, and deceptive in marketing. Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer.
I along with most people chose to buy something else (Sandybridge to Sky Lake). The lack of a competitive offering from AMD created the pseudo monopoly from Intel, and many people rightfully complained about the lack of innovation from Intel.
Also there is no optimizing for hardware that isn’t physically present. 4 fpus means 4 cpu cores when doing floating point tasks, which is highly consequential for gaming and web browsing.
There is no arguing for AMD’s construction equipment family. It sucked, just like Intel’s monopolistic dominance and Rocket Lake.
AshlayW - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - linkFYI, most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point. Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming and web browsing is false.
mode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link> most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point.
> Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming
LOL, wut? Gaming is *so* dominated by floating point that GPUs have long relegated integer arithmetic performance to little more than their fp64 throughput!
Geometry, physics, AI, ...all floating point. Even a lot of sound processing has transitioned over to floating-point! I'm struggling to think of much heavy-lifting typical games do that's *not* floating point! I mean, games that are CPU-bound in the first place - not like retro games, where the CPU is basically a non-issue.
Dolda2000 - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - linkWhile games certainly do use floating-point to an extent where it matters, as a (small-time) gamedev myself, I'd certainly argue that games are primarily integer-dominated. The parts that don't run on the GPU are more concerned with managing discrete states, calculating branch conditions, managing GPU memory resources, allocating and initializing objects, just managing general data structures, and so on and so forth.
Again, I'm not denying that there are parts of games that are more FP-heavy, but looking at my own decompiled code, even in things like collision checking and whatnot, even in the FP-heavy leaf functions, the FP instructions are intermingled with a comparable amount of integer instructions just for, you know, load/store of FP data, address generation, array indexing, looping, &c. And the more you zoom out of those "math-heavy" leaf functions, the lesser the FP mix. FP performance definitely matters, but it's hardly all that matters, and I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.