Monday, December 27th 2021

Intel Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 "Alder Lake" Quad-Core Chips Tested

Intel's upcoming Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 quad-core processors that form the value-end of the 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" desktop processor family, pack an incredible mix of performance for their segment, which puts them ahead of six-core parts from the previous-generation, according to performance testing on the ChipHell forums. The two chips are based on the "H0" silicon, and feature four "Golden Cove" P-cores with HyperThreading enabled; no E-cores, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. From what we can tell, the i3-12100 and i3-12300 are segment only by a 100 MHz maximum boost frequency value, and possibly at the iGPU-level.

Among the tests run by ChipHell are Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, CPU-Z bench, CS:GO; and power/thermal testing using AIDA64. Right off the bat, we see the two chips flex their high IPC in the CPU-Z bench, scoring 687 points (i3-12100), and 702.5 points (i3-12300). An AMD "Zen 3" based quad-core chip, such as the OEM-only Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G, should score roughly 620 points, while the slowest "Rocket Lake" part, the i5-11400, only does 566 points. The multi-threaded test sees scores ranging between 3407 to 3482 points for the two.
CB R20 and R23 see the i3-12100 and i3-12300 top the performance charts in comparison to the Ryzen 3 5350G, posting 21-25% higher single-threaded scores in CB R20; and 22-25% in CB R23 single-thread. Both chips offer proportionately high multi-threaded performance compared to the 5350G. The i3-12300 ends up 17% slower in multi-threaded CB R23 than the six-core i5-11400, and 28% slower than the 5600G. Find these results and more, in the source links below.
Sources: VideoCardz, ChipHell, 3DCenter.org, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

97 Comments on Intel Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 "Alder Lake" Quad-Core Chips Tested

#51
GURU7OF9
Chrispy_This.
Very hard to recommend AMD again, they've abandoned the most important market segment for long-term growth; budget general purpose CPUs that do everything.


What makes you think Intel won't price their dGPUs to compete with AMD and Nvidia? If they perform like a 3070 they are going to be priced like a 3070.
Intel are a business, not a charity!
Completely agree !
That's what i have been saying!
I think AMD will re assess cpu pricing once Alderlake non k are released ! You want AMD to have good products, then you will pay. That's the way Intel operate and any company with good products the same . AMD were always budget cos they were no where near as good as Intel until the last couple of years. The hard part is to stay competitive!
As for gpus, Intel will charge accordingly to their competition. There will be no big discounts!
watzupkenI think if you look at the current state of Intel processor sales, even with the Alder Lake clearly beating the Ryzen 5000 series, ADL chips are not flying off the shelves. There are too many hurdles to adopt ADL at the moment, with software support being one of them. So you can see during the holiday season, Ryzen chips still dominate the top sales.
Things may improve for Intel with CPUs without E-cores, and cheaper motherboard options that goes well with cheaper DDR4 memory since DDR5 is either ultra expensive or non-existent. We may see AMD starting to cut price then. I believe AMD is not cutting prices drastically now since it is obvious the CPUs are still selling well, and the cost of manufacturing these chips is not cheap (TSMC have increased prices). Assuming the retail chips are not selling well, they can always divert those resources to making high profit margin products like the EPYC lineup. Intel's current CPU lineup for corporate/ data center is still not competitive. I feel they are trying to make as much as they can with each release since competition is going to get very heated in the upcoming years.
I think you are right on the money !
Posted on Reply
#52
Minus Infinity
Caring1How did you interpret that from what I said?
I'm curious as to how I can help your comprehension skills.
You are the one said that all Intel did was "merely" gain market share. Didn't sound like you were in any way praising them.
Posted on Reply
#53
ratirt
Chrispy_This.
Very hard to recommend AMD again, they've abandoned the most important market segment for long-term growth; budget general purpose CPUs that do everything.


What makes you think Intel won't price their dGPUs to compete with AMD and Nvidia? If they perform like a 3070 they are going to be priced like a 3070.
Intel are a business, not a charity!
Why very hard? I don't see AMD abandon it.
I still am puzzled why people compare the price for 12400f to a 5600x. It's mind boggling to me.
Posted on Reply
#54
Taraquin
ratirtWhy very hard? I don't see AMD abandon it.
I still am puzzled why people compare the price for 12400f to a 5600x. It's mind boggling to me.
From the early review by chiphell, Igors lab etc 12400f performs very close to 5600X while costing about 100usd less and using significantly less energy. A budget B660 will probably cost slightly more than a budget B550, but even considering that 12400f looks like a 5600X killer unless AMD cut the price.
Posted on Reply
#55
Why_Me
ratirtWhy very hard? I don't see AMD abandon it.
I still am puzzled why people compare the price for 12400f to a 5600x. It's mind boggling to me.
What cpu other than the i5 11400F should the 5600x be compared to?

www.amazon.com/dp/B08166SLDF
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $290.74

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400f-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118264
Intel Core i5-11400F $182.95

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813144396
MSI MAG B560M BAZOOKA $99.99

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B560M-BAZOOKA
Posted on Reply
#56
ratirt
TaraquinFrom the early review by chiphell, Igors lab etc 12400f performs very close to 5600X while costing about 100usd less and using significantly less energy. A budget B660 will probably cost slightly more than a budget B550, but even considering that 12400f looks like a 5600X killer unless AMD cut the price.
Why not compare it to a 5600g? This one has the same price range and obviously the 12400f will be faster. Just putting it here since people think there is not lower priced AMD processors around. There are it is just for some reason the argument is 5600x is so much more expensive than a 12400f. You can get cheaper AMD product and obviously Intel will be faster since it just got released but with the price range you can buy cheaper product.
When you say performs very close or faster, what do you have in mind games?
12400f will be faster than a 5600x. It is obvious Intel has advanced CPUs. 5600x is not the lowest tier of the CPUs like the 12400f is. What I'm point out is, there are cheaper CPUs from AMD in the same price range.
Why_MeWhat cpu other than the i5 11400F should the 5600x be compared to?
As mentioned 5600g is in the same price range for instance. There are cheaper AMD CPUs there.
Why_MeWhat cpu other than the i5 11400F should the 5600x be compared to?

www.amazon.com/dp/B08166SLDF
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $290.74

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400f-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118264
Intel Core i5-11400F $182.95

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813144396
MSI MAG B560M BAZOOKA $99.99

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B560M-BAZOOKA
www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600G-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B092L9GF5N/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=5600g&qid=1640765385&sr=8-1
The 11400f is not available. out of stock and I thought we are talking about 12400f
Posted on Reply
#57
Taraquin
ratirtWhy not compare it to a 5600g? This one has the same price range and obviously the 12400f will be faster. Just putting it here since people think there is not lower priced AMD processors around. There are it is just for some reason the argument is 5600x is so much more expensive than a 12400f. You can get cheaper AMD product and obviously Intel will be faster since it just got released but with the price range you can buy cheaper product.
When you say performs very close or faster, what do you have in mind games?
12400f will be faster than a 5600x. It is obvious Intel has advanced CPUs. 5600x is not the lowest tier of the CPUs like the 12400f is. What I'm point out is, there are cheaper CPUs from AMD in the same price range.

As mentioned 5600g is in the same price range for instance. There are cheaper AMD CPUs there.


www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600G-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B092L9GF5N/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=5600g&qid=1640765385&sr=8-1
The 11400f is not available. out of stock and I thought we are talking about 12400f
I compare the 12400F to 5600X since the both lack iGPU and performs similar, also the 5600G is slower, lacks PCIe gen 4.0 and is more expensive, the 12400 non-F is a valid comparison to 5600G, they are much closer i price and 5600G has a better iGPU, but are slower in games\apps. 5600G is more of an option for office use like 12400 non-F. 12400F is more specific for gamers like 5600X due to no iGPU. In games 5600X is a bit faster, 3% on avg according to Igors if you remove GPU-limit: Upcoming game changer in the mid-range? Intel Core i5-12400 Review and Gaming Benchmarks - more efficient without E-Cores and with DDR4 instead | Page 8 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de) If you add inn PBO and curve optimizer you can add a few more percents that 12400F might not compesate for unless bclk and ring OC works on B660. If you tweak ram they are also quite similar as both max out around 3800-4200 depending on how far you get in Gear 1\Infinity fabric.

For apps: Intel Core i5-12400 Workstation Review - How does real work succeed without glued-on E-cores? | Part 2 | Page 5 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de) they are very simliar, but 12400F is more efficient.

12400F however is superior in powerefficiency both in gaming and apps, if the leaked price of 190usd is right then the 5600X should not cost more than 200usd if they are to compete considering MB-price of B660 probably will be a bit higher than for B550.

If we look at prices alone then the Ryzen 3600 is the competition for the 12400F, and it fails big time.
Posted on Reply
#58
TheoneandonlyMrK
ratirtWhy not compare it to a 5600g? This one has the same price range and obviously the 12400f will be faster. Just putting it here since people think there is not lower priced AMD processors around. There are it is just for some reason the argument is 5600x is so much more expensive than a 12400f. You can get cheaper AMD product and obviously Intel will be faster since it just got released but with the price range you can buy cheaper product.
When you say performs very close or faster, what do you have in mind games?
12400f will be faster than a 5600x. It is obvious Intel has advanced CPUs. 5600x is not the lowest tier of the CPUs like the 12400f is. What I'm point out is, there are cheaper CPUs from AMD in the same price range.

As mentioned 5600g is in the same price range for instance. There are cheaper AMD CPUs there.


www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5600G-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B092L9GF5N/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=5600g&qid=1640765385&sr=8-1
The 11400f is not available. out of stock and I thought we are talking about 12400f
3350G for pennies comparative being another example.

For bare min gaming
Posted on Reply
#59
watzupken
Chrispy_This.
Very hard to recommend AMD again, they've abandoned the most important market segment for long-term growth; budget general purpose CPUs that do everything.


What makes you think Intel won't price their dGPUs to compete with AMD and Nvidia? If they perform like a 3070 they are going to be priced like a 3070.
Intel are a business, not a charity!
AMD is not some saint that will always provide cheap/budget solution. They are a for profit company, and will always go for the meat, not the bone, when the opportunity arises. When the fab is charging them an arm and a leg to produce their chips, it makes sense to sell less and try and maintain a healthy margin. Selling more is not good for them at this point because it means they need to get more chips, which cost $$$. I am not specifically defending them, but this is logic. Pretty sure other companies like Nvidia is doing the same by limiting supply, so they don't need to pay the fab that much, yet have the reason to sell it way above MSRP and maintain their profit.

Intel have an advantage here in a sense they own their own fab, so they can control supply and pricing better than the likes of fabless companies like AMD. I suspect if yields for the lower and mid end processors are good, those i3 models may be hard to come by. No point wasting good dies and sell them cheaper than an i5 that costs more.
Posted on Reply
#60
GURU7OF9
Why_MeWhat cpu other than the i5 11400F should the 5600x be compared to?

www.amazon.com/dp/B08166SLDF
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $290.74

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400f-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118264
Intel Core i5-11400F $182.95

www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813144396
MSI MAG B560M BAZOOKA $99.99

www.msi.com/Motherboard/MAG-B560M-BAZOOKA
How about 11600k?
Price versus performance is the main way you can really compare products ! Atm Intel are essentially underpricing AMD but the new cpus are actually more cores with newer and hybrid architecture.
Kinda like AMD have been doing for last few years with the 12 and 16 core versions.
But price /performance is how you would buy stuff ! But you do need to take into account total system cost .
Next 12 months will be very interesting !
Posted on Reply
#61
ratirt
TaraquinI compare the 12400F to 5600X since the both lack iGPU and performs similar, also the 5600G is slower, lacks PCIe gen 4.0 and is more expensive, the 12400 non-F is a valid comparison to 5600G, they are much closer i price and 5600G has a better iGPU, but are slower in games\apps. 5600G is more of an option for office use like 12400 non-F. 12400F is more specific for gamers like 5600X due to no iGPU. In games 5600X is a bit faster, 3% on avg according to Igors if you remove GPU-limit: Upcoming game changer in the mid-range? Intel Core i5-12400 Review and Gaming Benchmarks - more efficient without E-Cores and with DDR4 instead | Page 8 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de) If you add inn PBO and curve optimizer you can add a few more percents that 12400F might not compesate for unless bclk and ring OC works on B660. If you tweak ram they are also quite similar as both max out around 3800-4200 depending on how far you get in Gear 1\Infinity fabric.

For apps: Intel Core i5-12400 Workstation Review - How does real work succeed without glued-on E-cores? | Part 2 | Page 5 | igor'sLAB (igorslab.de) they are very simliar, but 12400F is more efficient.

12400F however is superior in powerefficiency both in gaming and apps, if the leaked price of 190usd is right then the 5600X should not cost more than 200usd if they are to compete considering MB-price of B660 probably will be a bit higher than for B550.

If we look at prices alone then the Ryzen 3600 is the competition for the 12400F, and it fails big time.
Well, slower in games of course it is a 5000 series CPU and Intel has just released a new CPU line to tackle it which is obvious. I'd compare CPU from the same segment rather then by price or performance. The iGPU in the 5600g is pretty decent.
With the power efficiency I would withhold my opinion for the release and more reviews. I've seen the 12600K being basically on par with 5600x in terms of efficiency. It is hard for me to believe that the 12400f is efficient highly over 5600x or 5600g.
The 5600x is a different CPU with more cores than a 12400k or f and thus it will cost more and also it has been released way back. Price cuts for the 5000 series? Oh boy yeah :D Although I got mine already.

3600 is an already old architecture. You can compare everything but remember, you are comparing an old to a brand new which Intel has released to tackle the 5000 series CPUs from AMD. I'm sure, AMD will release new CPU to tackle 12000 series Intel's processors. This is how it works, the companies are trying to surpass each other with new products. Some people make it sound, like if AMD should not release 5000 series CPUs because Alder Lake CPUs are better. 5000 series CPUs have been with us for a while now so maybe lets wait for AMD's response and mean time compare CPUs, according to a segment they belong in.
Posted on Reply
#62
Chrispy_
watzupkenAMD is not some saint that will always provide cheap/budget solution. They are a for profit company, and will always go for the meat, not the bone, when the opportunity arises. When the fab is charging them an arm and a leg to produce their chips, it makes sense to sell less and try and maintain a healthy margin. Selling more is not good for them at this point because it means they need to get more chips, which cost $$$. I am not specifically defending them, but this is logic. Pretty sure other companies like Nvidia is doing the same by limiting supply, so they don't need to pay the fab that much, yet have the reason to sell it way above MSRP and maintain their profit.

Intel have an advantage here in a sense they own their own fab, so they can control supply and pricing better than the likes of fabless companies like AMD. I suspect if yields for the lower and mid end processors are good, those i3 models may be hard to come by. No point wasting good dies and sell them cheaper than an i5 that costs more.
Yeah. The lack of mainstream offerings from AMD is hurting their customer base, that's all. They don't have majority marketshare so each customer is worth more to AMD in marketshare than they are worth to Intel. Chasing high-end, high-profit parts is good for making money but low volume and decreasing marketshare is bad for getting big OEMs on board for huge orders and bad for convincing OEMs to give you design wins. It's a positive feedback loop too so shrinking market share makes the whole thing exponentially worse over time. The key here is over time; AMD can trade market share for fat profits for a while and then come back with another R5 3600, but every additional product that undercuts AMD whilst satisfying customers is chiping away at AMD's currently healthy market position in the long run.

I'm sure once supply/demand balance out again we'll see budget options from AMD again but you have to remember that chasing the high-end for big profits in a small market share almost killed Apple in the early 00's
ratirtWhy very hard? I don't see AMD abandon it.
I still am puzzled why people compare the price for 12400f to a 5600x. It's mind boggling to me.
No need to be puzzled. A 12400F has been shown to compete with a 5800X in single-threaded and gaming workloads, whilst comfortably beating a 5600X in multi-threaded workloads.

Comparisons with the 5800X and 5600X are therefore the most obvious ones to make.

There's nothing invalid about comparing a 12400F to a 5600G either, but you're suddenly removing like-for-like comparisons which makes the comparison less relevant. The 5600G has an IGP and less L3 cache, which hurts its performance and the reduced cache + IGP makes it unlike the 5600X/5800X/12400F both in how its performance scales and also which market sector its targeting; If you have a dGPU you probably wouldn't look at the 5600G because it sacrifices cache and performance for an IGP you don't need and likewise if you have no dGPU you're unlikely to be looking at the 5600X/5800X/12400F since then you have an incomplete system that won't boot.
Posted on Reply
#63
ratirt
Chrispy_No need to be puzzled. A 12400F has been shown to compete with a 5800X in single-threaded and gaming workloads, whilst comfortably beating a 5600X in multi-threaded workloads.

Comparisons with the 5800X and 5600X are therefore the most obvious ones to make.

There's nothing invalid about comparing a 12400F to a 5600G either, but you're suddenly removing like-for-like comparisons which makes the comparison less relevant. The 5600G has an IGP and less L3 cache, which hurts its performance and the reduced cache + IGP makes it unlike the 5600X/5800X/12400F both in how its performance scales and also which market sector its targeting; If you have a dGPU you probably wouldn't look at the 5600G because it sacrifices cache and performance for an IGP you don't need and likewise if you have no dGPU you're unlikely to be looking at the 5600X/5800X/12400F since then you have an incomplete system that won't boot.
What puzzles me now is your arrogance and complete lack of perspective but good that you are here. The 12400 is not to compete with 5800x. I guess missing the point is a new trend nowadays. No advise for you. I'm sorry.
Posted on Reply
#64
thelawnet
Well here for example:

Pentium G6405 1050 rp
Athlon 3000G: 1300 rp
10105F: 1200
10400F: 2025
11600K: 3900
Ryzen 5600G: 3900
12600K: 4700

GT 1030 GDDR5 (cheapest new card): 1900.

So compared to the 10400F + GT 1030 the 5600G is a better CPU and similar graphics, and cheaper, and compared to the 11600K it's about the same, the same price and much better IGP. Compare to the 12600K it's cheaper, loses on performance which is fair but still GPU is expensive.

And of course with cheaper motherboards the 3000G 's a far better gaming solution for basic games than the Pentium and the cost works out about the same.

With the total overpricing of all GPUs and the dreadful performance of Intel's IGP, then the Athlon is useful in developing countries.

This is still based on double priced GPUs, unfortuantely, but AMD remain relevant especially with the 12100 and 12300 not actually available yet
Posted on Reply
#65
Taraquin
ratirtWell, slower in games of course it is a 5000 series CPU and Intel has just released a new CPU line to tackle it which is obvious. I'd compare CPU from the same segment rather then by price or performance. The iGPU in the 5600g is pretty decent.
With the power efficiency I would withhold my opinion for the release and more reviews. I've seen the 12600K being basically on par with 5600x in terms of efficiency. It is hard for me to believe that the 12400f is efficient highly over 5600x or 5600g.
The 5600x is a different CPU with more cores than a 12400k or f and thus it will cost more and also it has been released way back. Price cuts for the 5000 series? Oh boy yeah :D Although I got mine already.

3600 is an already old architecture. You can compare everything but remember, you are comparing an old to a brand new which Intel has released to tackle the 5000 series CPUs from AMD. I'm sure, AMD will release new CPU to tackle 12000 series Intel's processors. This is how it works, the companies are trying to surpass each other with new products. Some people make it sound, like if AMD should not release 5000 series CPUs because Alder Lake CPUs are better. 5000 series CPUs have been with us for a while now so maybe lets wait for AMD's response and mean time compare CPUs, according to a segment they belong in.
12400F and 5600X has 6c/12t each. 12600K i probably less efficient than 12400F since it has extra cores and run far higher clockspeeds at higher voltages. If AMD wants to maintain their marketshare they ought to cut prices on several of it's CPUs since they can't compete with either price, price to performance or performance. With Ryzen 3k it held the crown in the first 2 (3 if you count productivity and not gaming).
Posted on Reply
#66
Why_Me
GURU7OF9How about 11600k?
Price versus performance is the main way you can really compare products ! Atm Intel are essentially underpricing AMD but the new cpus are actually more cores with newer and hybrid architecture.
Kinda like AMD have been doing for last few years with the 12 and 16 core versions.
But price /performance is how you would buy stuff ! But you do need to take into account total system cost .
Next 12 months will be very interesting !
The i5 12400F has 6 cores/12 threads. Same as the 5600x.
Posted on Reply
#67
Chrispy_
ratirtWhat puzzles me now is your arrogance and complete lack of perspective but good that you are here. The 12400 is not to compete with 5800x. I guess missing the point is a new trend nowadays. No advise for you. I'm sorry.
I don't understand you at all. I gave you some clear explanation of why I and everyone else in this thread think the 12400F competes with the 5600X and 5800X and you instead insult me by calling it arrogance.

You seem fixated on price but AMD are not competing on price. That much is clear, that's why we don't agree with you. What is your logic for fixating on cost and nothing else? Performance/$, overall performance, and availability are far more valid than an MSRP given the supply and demand issues right now making MSRPs inaccurate if not entirely irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#68
GURU7OF9
Why_MeThe i5 12400F has 6 cores/12 threads. Same as the 5600x.
Yes I understand what you are saying and until ryzen 5600x is reduced in price, it is currently competing against 12600k.(Until 12400f is actually released!).
Most likely outcome, I would expect them to drop the price to match or be close to 12400f and then the new 5600x 3d vcache would be taking on the 12600k with both price and performance .
12600k has 4 more cores, being e cores but it has higher ipc and also clock speeds to give it faster single core and multicore scores.
Ironically it gets the least boost for gaming. It is faster in gaming but not all that much for most things!
Most muticore stuff it really smashes the 5600x cos of 4 extra cores but it varies a bit !
Posted on Reply
#69
TheoneandonlyMrK
Why_MeThe i5 12400F has 6 cores/12 threads. Same as the 5600x.
The I5 12400F also beats the 11900K in games.

Wtaf your comment or mine has to do with the un-released yet I3 12100 and 12300, the actual product in the OP.

I couldn't tell you but since we're just chatting about irrelevant SKUs.
Posted on Reply
#70
GURU7OF9
Taraquin12400F and 5600X has 6c/12t each. 12600K i probably less efficient than 12400F since it has extra cores and run far higher clockspeeds at higher voltages. If AMD wants to maintain their marketshare they ought to cut prices on several of it's CPUs since they can't compete with either price, price to performance or performance. With Ryzen 3k it held the crown in the first 2 (3 if you count productivity and not gaming).
I think Ryzen cpus are still selling very well atm. They stack up pretty well for efficiency compared with Alderlake .
12400F is not released yet or 12100 and 12300 etc and until they are, I cant see AMD cutting prices.
But we won't have to wait long supposedly !
Be interesting to see what they do?
TaraquinFrom the early review by chiphell, Igors lab etc 12400f performs very close to 5600X while costing about 100usd less and using significantly less energy. A budget B660 will probably cost slightly more than a budget B550, but even considering that 12400f looks like a 5600X killer unless AMD cut the price.
I think what a few people in here are saying is that, you are comparing an unreleased product with a current product and AMD will probly cut price if and when they need to .
But at the moment 12400F is not released and therefore is not a directly competing product with 5600X.
Certainly not yet in that sense , but it may well be when the time comes.
DeathtoGnomesSomething to consider, ADLs low sale could be; 1) a slow adaption of Ecores, 2) failed understanding of the big-little concept leading consumers to go with OG designs.
Most people want cheap! Mostly enthusiasts would be early adopters of new high end Alderlake. Atm only the high end stuff ie k versions with higher cost have been released ! When the soon to be released non k versions are out, along with cheaper chipset motherboards, then i would expect a lot more people to start buying them.
Posted on Reply
#71
ratirt
Taraquin12400F and 5600X has 6c/12t each. 12600K i probably less efficient than 12400F since it has extra cores and run far higher clockspeeds at higher voltages. If AMD wants to maintain their marketshare they ought to cut prices on several of it's CPUs since they can't compete with either price, price to performance or performance. With Ryzen 3k it held the crown in the first 2 (3 if you count productivity and not gaming).
Right. I missed that to be fair. Somehow I thought it rocks 4c. It would seem the 12600K is less efficient. No wonder the baseclock for 12400f is pretty low. For me balance is the most important. Boost is lower for the 1400 as well. With the K version it probably doesn't matter that much cause you can always OC.
Chrispy_I don't understand you at all. I gave you some clear explanation of why I and everyone else in this thread think the 12400F competes with the 5600X and 5800X and you instead insult me by calling it arrogance.

You seem fixated on price but AMD are not competing on price. That much is clear, that's why we don't agree with you. What is your logic for fixating on cost and nothing else? Performance/$, overall performance, and availability are far more valid than an MSRP given the supply and demand issues right now making MSRPs inaccurate if not entirely irrelevant.
AMD is not to compete with price with AL but Rocket lake but it does not mean the price for the 5000 series should not drop. It should since Intel's AL offers more bang for buck but that is to be seen. With AL Intel is tackling AMD not all the way around. Will AMD drop price for 5000 series? I don't know. Should AMD lower prices for 5000 series CPUs considering AL in the picture? Yes.
Posted on Reply
#72
Chrispy_
ratirtAMD is not to compete with price with AL but Rocket lake but it does not mean the price for the 5000 series should not drop. It should since Intel's AL offers more bang for buck but that is to be seen. With AL Intel is tackling AMD not all the way around. Will AMD drop price for 5000 series? I don't know. Should AMD lower prices for 5000 series CPUs considering AL in the picture? Yes.
Street prices of AL + budget boards will determine the street prices of Ryzen 5000-series + budget boards, once they're available in stores rather than just leaked to reviewers since the 12400F is going to out-supply and outperform the 5600X with near certainty at this point - we already know x1000 quantity costs of the entire AL stack though so it's a question of how soon AMD reduce prices or whether they're not producing enough 5000-series at this point to care.

The i3 12300 quad core in the topic of this thread is absolutely decimating the 5350G (Zen3 Quad core) and that's likely because the Zen3 APUs with reduced cache really do suck compare to their full-cache counterparts. I'm not saying that they suck in isolation - they're great overall solutions if you need the IGP but you're giving up a lot of performance to get that IGP. The fact that AL is handily beating the full-fat 5000X-series chips does not bode well for AMD's APU lineup at all, given that most of the AL chips come with a functional IGP and give up zero performance for that fact.
Posted on Reply
#73
GURU7OF9
Chrispy_Street prices of AL + budget boards will determine the street prices of Ryzen 5000-series + budget boards, once they're available in stores rather than just leaked to reviewers since the 12400F is going to out-supply and outperform the 5600X with near certainty at this point - we already know x1000 quantity costs of the entire AL stack though so it's a question of how soon AMD reduce prices or whether they're not producing enough 5000-series at this point to care.

The i3 12300 quad core in the topic of this thread is absolutely decimating the 5350G (Zen3 Quad core) and that's likely because the Zen3 APUs with reduced cache really do suck compare to their full-cache counterparts. I'm not saying that they suck in isolation - they're great overall solutions if you need the IGP but you're giving up a lot of performance to get that IGP. The fact that AL is handily beating the full-fat 5000X-series chips does not bode well for AMD's APU lineup at all, given that most of the AL chips come with a functional IGP and give up zero performance for that fact.
I wonder if Alderlake without an igpu at all, rather than just disabled would be giving up performance like Ryzen APUs? Only Intel engineers would know. They could have filled up the space with more performance enhancing stuff instead of igpu.
Posted on Reply
#74
QuietBob
Chrispy_The i3 12300 quad core in the topic of this thread is absolutely decimating the 5350G (Zen3 Quad core) and that's likely because the Zen3 APUs with reduced cache really do suck compare to their full-cache counterparts.
Not only that, but the 53x0G/GE also suck in comparison with the 3300X. If you look at my benchmark results, an overclocked 3300X goes neck and neck with them in both ST and MT. In few other benchmarks they are up to 10% faster. Not what I would call a generational uplift. Also, they can't be overclocked and are limited to OEM market as of now.

In honesty, these budget Zen 3 APUs offer no competition to Zen 2 quads, never mind the upcoming Alder Lake i3 line. Unless AMD introduces a new low price alternative, they'll have nothing to rival Intel in this segment.
Posted on Reply
#75
TheoneandonlyMrK
QuietBobNot only that, but the 53x0G/GE also suck in comparison with the 3300X. If you look at my benchmark results, an overclocked 3300X goes neck and neck with them in both ST and MT. In few other benchmarks they are up to 10% faster. Not what I would call a generational uplift. Also, they can't be overclocked and are limited to OEM market as of now.

In honesty, these budget Zen 3 APUs offer no competition to Zen 2 quads, never mind the upcoming Alder Lake i3 line. Unless AMD introduces a new low price alternative, they'll have nothing to rival Intel in this segment.
Total balls, why because if you are buying a 3350 at this moment, it's because your at the low end of the price for the full pc(4/500£) , and in that case, it's playing fortnight on low at 70fps with no GPU, I put one in , it's not bad ,I should have benched it but it was a quick test.
I'm not saying it beats, Anything, what I am saying is it's as good as any old era quad and some more recent and is presently the cheapest viable gaming pc option add a £50 board and 16 GB of ddr4 and your still shy of the cost of some CPU but it'll do the job ,Cheaper.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment