Tuesday, December 14th 2021
Intel Core i3-12100F & i5-12400F Surface Without Efficiency Cores
The first 65 W Alder Lake desktop processors have recently surfaced including the i3-12100F, i5-12400F, and i7-12700F which are expected to launch in January. The i3-12100F and i5-12400F are expected to be the first Alder Lake-S processors without any Gracemont high-efficiency cores instead of relying solely on Golden Cove high-performance cores. The i3-12100F will feature 4 cores and 8 threads with a max boost speed of 4.3 GHz while the i5-12400F will include 6 cores and 12 threads running at a max clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
The i7-12700F will feature the same core configuration as the i7-12700KF just with lower clock speeds and a reduced TDP of 65 W compared to 125 W. The packaging for these three processors along with marketing materials have been leaked revealing that the retail versions will include the Laminar RM1 stock cooler. These new Alder Lake CPUs along with various other models are expected to launch sometime in January after CES 2022.
Source:
VideoCardz
The i7-12700F will feature the same core configuration as the i7-12700KF just with lower clock speeds and a reduced TDP of 65 W compared to 125 W. The packaging for these three processors along with marketing materials have been leaked revealing that the retail versions will include the Laminar RM1 stock cooler. These new Alder Lake CPUs along with various other models are expected to launch sometime in January after CES 2022.
27 Comments on Intel Core i3-12100F & i5-12400F Surface Without Efficiency Cores
probab worst than the old intel stock cooler b/c it has less metal on it.
maybe since the server issues are resolved, staff can post the pics (again) here:
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/first-clear-picture-of-intel-next-gen-stock-cooler-for-alder-lake-processors-surfaces.289859/
It looks awesome for a stock cooler. I wonder if the blue lining glows. Probably not though...
But yeah... less metal, more plastic and a ring LED. I guess Intel knows how to modernize its portfolio now, and the LED being blue, surely must provide a good temperature reduction.
I swear the e-cores only exist to add some crunch to cinebench
On Meteor Lake u get a cooler in the size for old Chipsets?
Maybe the Company im work, should spend some Alu for Intel :roll:
The way I see the P+E design isn't as an 8+8 core CPU, but as a 16 core CPU with half of the cores having nobbled performance. That's pretty annoying for me, so I'd just rather pay less money for an 8 core performance only model. Or heck, I may just go AMD this time as the Intel gaming performance advantage really isn't all that much. We'll see,
Then they want to win where AMD is strong, multi threaded... but they lack power efficiency. How can they do a Zen 1 with lots of cores, without losing the ST performance?
Oh thats right, add both. Chips that say screw the power consumption and go max performance, and chips that add MT performance at more efficient settings, whilst also spreading the heat load out making it easier to cool
There is no point to direct the air out before the main heatsink....I bet a pure 8 P core CPU with the same 241W TDP will crush the 12900k in gaming no doubt
Less heat directed at the VRMs.
The fan pulls convected heat away from the heatsink, so doesn't all have to be directed down.
But also less airflow directed to the CPU heatsink.......
I don't think it is worth trading CPU temps for VRM temps........
Chocking the CPU cooler will make the cooler exhaust air hot (not warm) then hits your VRMs, so it balanced out your "fresh air".
And the CPU temps sky high.
So Yes, it is better to be that way, moving all air through the main heat sink and let warm air do the VRM cooling.
In a smaller cases you need more airflow to refresh air faster so the same thing can happen. Placing fans directly on a vrm only helps in a small case and only IF you can exhaust that air quickly.
They have made some improvements, but on average they're quite behind ryzen
Apart from the 10400f (which genuinely is a decent all rounder CPU), it seems you've been reading the charts backwards "lower is better"
and ofc, the end of the review (12700k) - i dont feel the need to highlight the specific line