Tuesday, December 21st 2021

Intel 65 W Alder Lake-S Pricing Confirmed

The pricing for Intel's upcoming 65 W 12th Generation Core Alder Lake-S desktop processors has recently been confirmed by BestBuy when they prematurely updated the pricing on their website. The listings do not include some previously leaked products so some models may be delayed and not immediately available to purchase at launch. The Intel Core i9-12900 is listed for 529.99 USD which is 60 USD less than the unlocked Core i9-12900K, while the Core i7-12700 will retail for 359.99 USD.

We can see three mid-range Core i5 products listed with the i5-12600 for 239.99 USD, i5-12500 for 219.99 USD, and the i5-12400 at 209.99 USD. The entry-level segment includes the i3-12100 listed at 139.99 USD and the Pentium G7400/G6900 for 79.99 USD and 59.99 USD respectively. These new processors are expected to be available immediately after their announcement on January 5th. The complete leaked price list with comparisons to the current retail pricing for the comparable 11th Generation Core chip can be found below.
  • Core i9-12900 - 529.99 USD (Core i9-11900 - 449.99 USD)
  • Core i9-12900F - 509.99 USD (Core i9-11900F - 439.99 USD)
  • Core i7-12700 - 359.99 USD (Core i7-11700 - 339.99 USD)
  • Core i7-12700F - 329.99 USD (Core i7-11700F - 324.99 USD)
  • Core i5-12600 - 239.99 USD (Core i5-11600 - 219.99 USD)
  • Core i5-12500 - 219.99 USD (Core i5-11500 - 224.99 USD)
  • Core i5-12400 - 209.99 USD (Core i5-11400 - 189.99 USD)
  • Core i5-12400F - 179.99 USD (Core i5-11400F - 174.99 USD)
  • Core i3-12100 - 139.99 USD (Core i3-10105 - 119.00 USD)
  • Core i3-12100F - 109.99 USD (Core i3-10105F - 110.00 USD)
  • Pentium G7400 - 79.99 USD (Pentium G6505 - 75.00 USD)
  • Pentium G6900 - 59.99 USD (Pentium G6405 - 65.00 USD)
Sources: @momomo_us, VideoCardz
Add your own comment

31 Comments on Intel 65 W Alder Lake-S Pricing Confirmed

#1
Fourstaff
Good prices. 12400F is likely to be the bang for buck king again.
Posted on Reply
#2
ixi
FourstaffGood prices. 12400F is likely to be the bang for buck king again.
Indeed, at least for now.
Posted on Reply
#3
Why_Me
These two. :)

Core i5-12400F - $179.99 USD
Core i7-12700F - $329.99 USD
Posted on Reply
#4
lemonadesoda
I dont even know what 65W means anymore. And does 65W=65W as you pass through these skus? Looking forward to reviews and real power figures.
Posted on Reply
#5
docnorth
I would judge these prices positive, although we have to wait for motherboard pricing.
The quad-core I3's will probably wipe the floor with my (still strong) I7-6700. Btw the I3 at 140 USD might be a 12300 not 12100, 30 USD up from 12100f seems too much (just nitpicking).
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
I'll pass on this early adopter gen, thx.
lemonadesodaI dont even know what 65W means anymore. And does 65W=65W as you pass through these skus? Looking forward to reviews and real power figures.
65W is 117W peak in the current twisted world we live in.

And all is well, apparently.
Posted on Reply
#7
watzupken
Prices look good. The i5 options looks very decent for their price, but I think will need to see how they perform. I believe it is not just a simple case of losing the E-cores, but there may be other cuts, i.e. cache size, etc...
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
FourstaffGood prices. 12400F is likely to be the bang for buck king again.
When was it king before? :p

Also, if these are supposedly available starting Jan 5, shall I expect some motherboard leaks as well?
lemonadesodaI dont even know what 65W means anymore. And does 65W=65W as you pass through these skus? Looking forward to reviews and real power figures.
It's not that hard: it's 65W on average under load, over longer periods of time (10-15 minutes or so). At least for these non-K models.
Posted on Reply
#9
Fourstaff
bugWhen was it king before? :p
11400F, then 10400F, then 9400F before that ... and then 2600 and 1600AF?
Posted on Reply
#11
Chrispy_
Vayra86I'll pass on this early adopter gen, thx.



65W is 117W peak in the current twisted world we live in.

And all is well, apparently.
And as much as I hate to say it, Intel aren't the only ones with this stupid labelling - AMD's 105W TDP draws 142W and their 65W TDP draws 88W :(
Posted on Reply
#12
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
Chrispy_And as much as I hate to say it, Intel aren't the only ones with this stupid labelling - AMD's 105W TDP draws 142W and their 65W TDP draws 88W :(
Because TDP rating does not mean power consumption. This isnt anything new.
Posted on Reply
#13
Lionheart
Fourstaff11400F, then 10400F, then 9400F before that ... and then 2600 and 1600AF?
3600?
Posted on Reply
#14
bug
Fourstaff11400F, then 10400F, then 9400F before that ... and then 2600 and 1600AF?
It was tongue in cheek. None of those are 12400F, so 12400F was never king ;)
Posted on Reply
#15
Why_Me
Lionheart3600?
Fits in between the 10400F and the 9400F.

AMD continues their war on poor people.

www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07STGGQ18/
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 $297.00

www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=428310&CatId=11859&csid=_86
Intel CORE I5-10400F $145.01

www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-19-118-241&tpk=9b-19-118-241
Intel Core i5-11400 $189.88

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10400f/
Posted on Reply
#16
Lionheart
Why_MeFits in between the 10400F and the 9400F.

AMD continues their war on poor people.

www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07STGGQ18/
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 $297.00

www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=428310&CatId=11859&csid=_86
Intel CORE I5-10400F $145.01

www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-19-118-241&tpk=9b-19-118-241
Intel Core i5-11400 $189.88

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10400f/
Jesus lmao that's like Australian pricing in USD, gross. Seems like AMD is banking on their never ending platform support which I do love but that pricing is just gross, those i5's look like great deals but I'd easily wait for a 12400 for sure, it's gonna be the go to chip, competition is good.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
MxPhenom 216Because TDP rating does not mean power consumption. This isnt anything new.
Theoretically true, practically however the goalposts are moving further into extremes every gen since 2016. Coincidentally ever since Intel started re-releasing Skylake. Kaby Lake was the first series of 'hot' quad cores, trying to hit 5 Ghz. And they never lost that 'quality', but TDP boundaries have since been stretched further and further.

Today, we've escalated into a territory where Intel blatantly markets PL1=PL2 on K CPUs with an absolutely gross, excessive peak wattage. While still marketing TDP as the same thing it always was. We're drifting away from reality here - similarly on non-K, where you can peak to near double the stated TDP.
Posted on Reply
#18
Chrispy_
MxPhenom 216Because TDP rating does not mean power consumption. This isnt anything new.
Correct, TDP is entirely arbitrary and as meaningless by itself as it is pointless trying to compare AMD TDP and Intel TDP.

Both definite TDP slightly differently but the gist of the term is "the average amount of power a cooler is required to dissipate over a long period in order for the CPU to maintain base clocks under continuous load", a statement that doesn't reflect how CPUs are used any more, since base clocks are exceeded by default and almost never come into play, whilst continuous loads exist solely in benchmarks and stress tests.

The only valid use for a TDP value from AMD or Intel is as a "minimum requirement" because if your cooler cannot dissipate the TDP effectively it will throttle below the base clocks, which is usually a very low clockspeed like 550MHz.
Posted on Reply
#20
Tigger
I'm the only one
The Kingvalid.x86.fr/0gt9vb
That is not bad, matches a 5800x in multithreaded. Budget king for sure
Posted on Reply
#21
The King
TiggerThat is not bad, matches a 5800x in multithreaded. Budget king for sure
It close to it with 12 threads vs 12 threads on 5800x with its full 16 threads the 5800X scores 6560 on MT.
But that 702 ST is really great for gamers.

Posted on Reply
#22
TheinsanegamerN
simlariverSo much product segmentation ...
Hate it all you want, at least intel gives the buyers the choice of buying a slower, segmented part for a lower price. With AMD it's pay 8 core price for a 6 core part or get lost.
Posted on Reply
#23
GURU7OF9
Chrispy_And as much as I hate to say it, Intel aren't the only ones with this stupid labelling - AMD's 105W TDP draws 142W and their 65W TDP draws 88W :(
I think Ryzen is much closer to the power specs that they quote than Intel are!
My Ryzen 5600x draws 76w max full load using prime95 at default settings and system full load is approx 135-140w. At idle system is approx 75-80w and cpu is 22w .
So for 65w cpu it is running at 76w full load at default settings. That's pretty close but!
Not double, like 2x + like a lot of Intel cpus.
Not as close AMD 105w at 142 w but they are generally much closer than any Intel cpus. Alderlake is a bit of everything. Good / bad!
Posted on Reply
#24
Tigger
I'm the only one
Idle, my 12700k is about 14 watts, package power.
Posted on Reply
#25
GURU7OF9
TiggerIdle, my 12700k is about 14 watts, package power.
Whats it like under full load ?
I have read games its pretty good but can blow out under prime95 etc
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment