Sunday, November 7th 2021

Intel Core i5-12400F Allegedly Offers Ryzen 5 5600X Performance for 200 USD

Intel has recently released their first 12th Gen Core desktop processors with the 125 W TDP K-Series and they appear to be preparing to launch the mid-range 65 W TDP chips in the coming months. The i5-12400F is set to feature 6 cores and threads consisting entirely of high-performance cores without any efficiency cores as found in the existing lineup. The processor features a peak single-core clock speed of 4.4 GHz, while multi-core speeds are 4.0 GHz and 3.4 GHz at PL2 and PL1 power limits respectively. The chip features a 65 W TDP/PL1 power rating and an apparent Maximum Turbo Power PL2 value of 117 W.

This processor has reportedly been tested by French publication Comptoir Hardware where it consistently matched or surpassed the Ryzen 5 5600X in synthetic and gaming benchmarks. These benchmarks were run on Windows 11 with DDR5 memory running at an unspecified speed and an AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT GPU. We have recently seen a listing for the processor at a Canadian retailer which lists the i5-12400F for 249 CAD (200 USD) which if true would be a sizable jump from the 157 USD price of its predecessor but still significantly under the 280 USD Ryzen 5 5600X. The Intel Core i5-12400F is expected to be officially announced sometime in January 2022 possibly at CES 2022.
Sources: Comptoir Hardware, @momomo_us
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Intel Core i5-12400F Allegedly Offers Ryzen 5 5600X Performance for 200 USD

#1
Why_Me
Team Blue is making a statement for sure.
Posted on Reply
#2
Crackong
The CPU for Windows 10 users
Posted on Reply
#3
RandallFlagg
Trades blows with 5600X, actually maybe a bit more wins.

Now Intel, do GPUs, so people have a reason to buy one.
Posted on Reply
#4
Totally
If only we could see this kind happening on the gpu side of things. I don't care for a CPU price war, but a GPU price war wouldn't be unwelcomed just saying.
Posted on Reply
#5
Xex360
Competition is always welcome, AMD will be pushed yo lower their Zen3 prices and launch new products to compete.
One question though, it seems to me that AMD is always very conservative when it comes to power, can't they "unlock" their Zen3 to consume more power and deliver more performance? Or is there some limitation that forbids this?
Posted on Reply
#6
RandallFlagg
Xex360Competition is always welcome, AMD will be pushed yo lower their Zen3 prices and launch new products to compete.
One question though, it seems to me that AMD is always very conservative when it comes to power, can't they "unlock" their Zen3 to consume more power and deliver more performance? Or is there some limitation that forbids this?
If I understand it correctly, PBO2 unlocks them. There are 6.2Ghz all core 5950X's on Geekbench.
Posted on Reply
#7
DeathtoGnomes
ahh the beginning of a new round of prices wars. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#8
Tomorrow
Would it not compete with 6600X (Zen 3D model) when it's launched in January-February next year?
Posted on Reply
#9
londiste
Xex360One question though, it seems to me that AMD is always very conservative when it comes to power, can't they "unlock" their Zen3 to consume more power and deliver more performance? Or is there some limitation that forbids this?
Power consumption curve that goes up like a wall at some point.
That 12900K power consumption leak with 330W at 5.2GHz also had a follow-up that 5.3GHz took 400W (+70W for 100MHz) and 4.9GHz ran at 230W (+100W for 300MHz compared to 5.2GHz).
Zen3 (or rather TSMCs N7) has a similar problem but at a slightly lower clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#10
Kohl Baas
I'm not sure if beating a 65W CPU with 120W os power consumption is beating at all.

I mean, sure, if you only look the performance charts, the 12900K sets score with the 5950X and even beats it on single core, but on the other hand, the 5950X is still limited to about 130W of power while the 12900K eats up almost 250W...

Pricing is of course another good viewpoint, but the plaing field is clearly not leveled. here. Just crank up a Ryzen to the same TDP levels where the Intel CPUs are and see the performance there for the buck.
Posted on Reply
#11
ExcuseMeWtf
Maybe it won't be affected by that "some DRM games not working" nonsense without those pesky E cores.
Posted on Reply
#12
spnidel
finally, some proper fucking competition
Posted on Reply
#13
tvamos
Kohl BaasI'm not sure if beating a 65W CPU with 120W os power consumption is beating at all.

I mean, sure, if you only look the performance charts, the 12900K sets score with the 5950X and even beats it on single core, but on the other hand, the 5950X is still limited to about 130W of power while the 12900K eats up almost 250W...

Pricing is of course another good viewpoint, but the plaing field is clearly not leveled. here. Just crank up a Ryzen to the same TDP levels where the Intel CPUs are and see the performance there for the buck.
Sadly, nobody cares about power draw if it is intel that is using more of it.

If amd cranked up power people would bash them for so much power just to match intel performance.

On the other hand - thank you intel for bringing competition back and lower prices, now I can hopefully upgrade my am4 system for cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#14
Kohl Baas
tvamosSadly, nobody cares about power draw if it is intel that is using more of it.

If amd cranked up power people would bash them for so much power just to match intel performance.

On the other hand - thank you intel for bringing competition back and lower prices, now I can hopefully upgrade my am4 system for cheaper.
Or nVidia. Somehow that two always set the terms and they really need to fail at all points for AMD to have a point. Like they did with Ryzen. Funny that people are crying for competition but they fail to set a level playing field when it comes to the showdown.

Well boo-hoo! What a trick to make a car with a few percent better performance while literally halving the mileage...

Yea, somthing I hoped for too. But still not sure if upgrade to 5600X or wait for Zen5 in 2023. Because no point in upgrading the CPU if I can't get a decent GPU at a non-scalper price. Not going to pay the same price I did for my Vega64 for a card that barely beats it 4 years later...
Posted on Reply
#15
docnorth
TomorrowWould it not compete with 6600X (Zen 3D model) when it's launched in January-February next year?
This is too much to ask. Theoretically 6600x (and 5600x) should compete with 12600k and maybe 12600 non-k. At the end this classification will be also determined by pricing.
Posted on Reply
#16
b4psm4m
Remember also about the platform cost. It doesn't really help to save $100 on a CPU if you have to spend an extra $150 on a motherboard, extra $50 on a CPU cooler, extra $50 on a PSU. Then if you decide to get DDR5....
Posted on Reply
#17
Why_Me
b4psm4mRemember also about the platform cost. It doesn't really help to save $100 on a CPU if you have to spend an extra $150 on a motherboard, extra $50 on a CPU cooler, extra $50 on a PSU. Then if you decide to get DDR5....
Difficult to say atm what the pricing will be for the B660 boards.
Posted on Reply
#18
uuee
Kohl BaasI'm not sure if beating a 65W CPU with 120W os power consumption is beating at all.

I mean, sure, if you only look the performance charts, the 12900K sets score with the 5950X and even beats it on single core, but on the other hand, the 5950X is still limited to about 130W of power while the 12900K eats up almost 250W...

Pricing is of course another good viewpoint, but the plaing field is clearly not leveled. here. Just crank up a Ryzen to the same TDP levels where the Intel CPUs are and see the performance there for the buck.
Well, 65W (actually 88) vs. 117W doesnt really matter, since both can be easily cooled -most likely Intel is cooler because of the less dense node and monolithic design.
Posted on Reply
#19
Bomby569
Damn Intel keeps pulling their punches, i hope the Gen 4 Ryzens drop in price like crazy in the near future, and that's amazing for my upgrade
b4psm4mRemember also about the platform cost. It doesn't really help to save $100 on a CPU if you have to spend an extra $150 on a motherboard, extra $50 on a CPU cooler, extra $50 on a PSU. Then if you decide to get DDR5....
I think those mobo's prices will come down, and you don't need a new cooler or PSU or even DDR5, i don't get your point at all. There's free upgrades for most coolers, there's support for DDR4 and if your not doing anything very specific and most of us don't they don't consumer more then the current CPU's
Posted on Reply
#20
Vayra86
uueeWell, 65W (actually 88) vs. 117W doesnt really matter, since both can be easily cooled -most likely Intel is cooler because of the less dense node and monolithic design.
Of course it matters. It always did and always will, there are only good reasons to run CPUs at lower TDP.

Overclocked out of the box to meet a grossly inefficient frequency target is just not beneficial, its that simple. It only serves to win benchmarks and marketing. You won't notice an advantage anywhere. And higher TDP is not easily cooled. Anything over 100-110W becomes heavy air cooling territory especially on a moderately warm day.
Posted on Reply
#21
Unregistered
uueeWell, 65W (actually 88) vs. 117W doesnt really matter, since both can be easily cooled -most likely Intel is cooler because of the less dense node and monolithic design.
It's not less dense. They're about the same. TSMC and Samsung have always been behind Intel in terms of density.



The monolithic design does help with having the hotspots in the center of the coldplate, though the der8auer and Arctic AIO offset mounts for AM4 help too.
#22
Metroid
"Intel Core i5-12400F Allegedly Offers Ryzen 5 5600X Performance for 200 USD" using twice as much watts, fixed hehe

The truth is painful to intel fanboys, yes performance is there but using twice as much watts? come on Intel you can do better than that, this is netburst all over hehe

The funny thing is that okay 200 usd 5600 performance but will have to use an aftermarket cooler that dissipates 300 watts and that is very expensive hehe, I wonder if a 360 aio can hold its own x 12400, pay attention that 12400 is the lowest of the lowest, so will still use 300 watts using only few cores ehhe

why intel, why intel, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hehe
Posted on Reply
#23
qcmadness
rares495It's not less dense. They're about the same. TSMC and Samsung have always been behind Intel in terms of density.



The monolithic design does help with having the hotspots in the center of the coldplate, though the der8auer and Arctic AIO offset mounts for AM4 help too.
These maximum density numbers do not represent real world CPU density.
Posted on Reply
#24
Unregistered
qcmadnessThese maximum density numbers do not represent real world CPU density.
What that screenshot shows is that Intel 10 nm is roughly on par with TSMC 7 nm in terms of density.
#25
qcmadness
rares495What that screenshot shows is that Intel 10 nm is roughly on par with TSMC 7 nm in terms of density.
But real world silicon are far less density than the SRAM demonstration, for both Intel and AMD. So you could not use these figures to figure out the real transistor density for Intel and AMD CPUs.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 23rd, 2022 15:59 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts