Intel Core i5-12400F

[ratirt]

That is true but its kinda moot point, even the 12400F is out of my budget/comfort zone and my use case don't really need it either so the 12100 is good enough and later down the line I can always sell it and upgrade if needed.
Updated B350 well, I wouldn't hold my breath for that and even then the 5000 serie CPUs are just overpriced here. '5600G is ~310 $'

Anyway waiting for the 12100 review to be posted on TPU cause thats what I'm mainly interested in tho I already know that its pretty solid for its price, based on Gamers Nexus's/Steve's review.

Don't rush it bro with the purchase. Wait for the 12100 and see where it will get you. It may turn out the 12100 is the go to for casual gaming option not the 12400f.
Time will tell

 

[scheilinkin]

I wanted to get 12100F for a review, expected the price of 100$, but it turned out to be 230$. 12400 is 310$ currently in Serbia, and 12600K is around 450$. Basically every CPU is in line with corresponding Ryzen 5000. 5600G for around 230$ here seems like the best choice.

B660 motherboards are non existant, cheapest Z690 DDR4 is 220$ ... Cheapest B550 is 75$ ...

 

[bug]

I wanted to get 12100F for a review, expected the price of 100$, but it turned out to be 230$. 12400 is 310$ currently in Serbia, and 12600K is around 450$. Basically every CPU is in line with corresponding Ryzen 5000. 5600G for around 230$ here seems like the best choice.

B660 motherboards are non existant, cheapest Z690 DDR4 is 220$ ... Cheapest B550 is 75$ ...

We all get extra-screwed in Eastern Europe (small markets, low purchasing power and whatnot), what ever made you even hope for a $100 12100F so close to launch?

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Well I also live in Eastern EU and got my combo of i3 12100F + B660 + 16GB DDR4 for $320 or so.

Another story though is I had to RMA the thing since it doesn't POST. Hopefully it will get rectified...

 

[Taraquin]

Hope @W1zzard , Publish next article about benchmark of Tweaked ( 5600X vs 12400F )

Tweaked i5 12400F meets tweaked 5600X!

Got my i5 12400F and a Asus B660m K a few days ago and did a comparison: Due to locked SA voltage (0.95V) I can`t run more than 3600 ram in gear 1 (using Silentiumpc fera 5 cooler) on 12400F atm, expect 3400-3700 gear 1 depending on bin. With stock cooler you will get 100MHz lower ram OC since...

www.techpowerup.com

I did that already, can add more tests later on

Spolier: 5600X slightly faster i games due to faster ram, 12400 runs cooler, uses a bit less energy, more efficient.

 

[thelawnet]

Don't rush it bro with the purchase. Wait for the 12100 and see where it will get you. It may turn out the 12100 is the go to for casual gaming option not the 12400f.
Time will tell

Where I am the numbers work like this:

* 10100f + h510m = $148
* 12100f + h610m = $220

For the 10400f add around $55 over the 10100f. For the 12400f you add $70 to the 12100f

Therefore the cheapest gaming rig is:

* 10100f + h610m + GT 1030 gddr5 ($120) = $268

This is slower than the 5600g, but cheaper since the 5600g is $270 plus a510m at $50. Obviously the 5600g is a worthwhile upgrade and objectively better value than a 10100f + 1030 system, but yeah it costs more money

The pricing of the GTX 1050 Ti is $245 and the 1650 $315.

The 1050 Ti pairs with the 10100f and will crush the 5600g

Now for gaming we can consider, w/board:

* 10100f $148
* 10400f $203
* 12100f $220
* 12400f $290

For gaming then up to a certain budget, the 10100f will crush the 12400f, because the benchmarks here with a $3000 GPU show the 12400 25% ahead of the 10100, but for $142 more which needs to be spent on a better GPU, up to a certain point (far better to have 10100f w/ 1050 Ti than 12400f w/ GT 1030)

Here the 12100f will obviously beat the 10400f for gaming, but it's more expensive in the real world, so that's only fair....

On top of that I'd note that the 10400f has six cores so is more future-proof than the 12100f, and will crush in true multithreaded loads, so at current prices:

1. 10100f for the cheapest systems
2. 10400f
3. 12100f - do not buy until prices for CPU and motherboard fall
4. 12400f - good chip, but this is several ranks up the tree and compared to truly budget systems, which contain 8gb ram, 256gb ssd etc., then the computer built on the 12400f is going to cost almost double the true budget PC

 

[Why_Me]

I wanted to get 12100F for a review, expected the price of 100$, but it turned out to be 230$. 12400 is 310$ currently in Serbia, and 12600K is around 450$. Basically every CPU is in line with corresponding Ryzen 5000. 5600G for around 230$ here seems like the best choice.

B660 motherboards are non existant, cheapest Z690 DDR4 is 220$ ... Cheapest B550 is 75$ ...

$250 ?

INTEL Core i5-12400F do 4.40GHz Box

OsnovnoKlasa procesora - Intel Core i5Model - i5-12400FBroj jezgara procesora - 6Broj logičkih jezgara (niti) - 12Radni takt - 2.5GHzTurbo frekvencija - 4.4GHzProcesorsko ležište (socket) - Intel 1700Keš memorija - 18MB Intel Smart CacheProces izrade - Intel 7 (10nm)TDP - 65WPodržane tehnologije...

mattiva.rs

 

[Taraquin]

@W1zzard please correct:

"As of this writing, Intel decided against launching the H670 client chipset, " - launched and shipping

". The H610 is the bare entry-level chipset. You lose out on memory overclocking, only get Gen3 PCIe connectivity across the board, and no CPU-attached NVMe."

Every H610 motherboard has PCIE 4.0 x 16 slot. M.2 connectivity is where you lose out, as it's indeed limited to PCI 3.0 (x4 for the first M.2, and x2 for the second, found only on the Asus Prime E/A).

I also found the article slightly confusing because all the graphs contain three bars, which I don't think are explained anywhere?

These are:

Red: DDR5-4800 CL40
Green: 2.5/4.4GHz
Blue: Power limits removed

I assumed the green was DDR4, because I didn't think anyone would be crazy enough to pair this thing with DDR5 RAM, but I checked more, and I guess in fact Green is the $550 RAM you used (DDR5-6000, CL36), and DDR5-4800 represents the manufacturer's max specs for the chip (hence DDR5-6000 is overclocked), but I'm not really clear why the CL has been reduced to CL40. At any rate it would be a lot clearer if it said DDR5-6000 CL40 for the green bars, instead of 2.5/4.4 GHz, which are just the manufacturer's standard specs, so not really a variable here.

In terms of the RAM recommendations, " My recommendation would be a DDR-3600 CL16 kit—easy to acquire and super affordable." , it looks like for 2x8GB/2x16GB:

* DDR4-3200 CL16 - $51/$98
* DDR4-3600 CL16 - $78/$154

It's not really clear to me that this is worth it or not, having chosen the cheapest CPU in the line-up, to spend 50% more on RAM?

Further, we could note that if you DID buy the 3200MHz RAM, then it would run at max speed with an H610 motherboard, which is $40 cheaper than a B660, and given the fact that you find almost no performance advantage from lifting the power limits (impossible on the H610?), then this chip becomes in the real world a lot more sensible because it doesn't really seem that great to spend $150 on a board for a $180 CPU and say it's far cheaper than a (faster) $280 CPU with an $80 board.

The price of the motherboards seems to be the elephant in the room, where with the launch of the 5600X you could use an existing motherboard with new BIOS, whereas for this you are forced to use a new generation board which will cut out a lot of the price savings.

I mean.... The B660 is definitely better than H610, but when you are buying a cut-down chip then you are obviously trying to save money, so I expect to see a bunch of pre-built PCs with 12400f + H610m.

The other point, incidentally, that I'm trying to figure out is which CPUs do end up throttled by the power limits (117W across the i5 non-k chips). The IGP is rated at 15W? So maybe an i5-12500/12600 (non-k) would be throttled during gaming on IGP?

For ram, if you run xmp there is little dfference between 3200 and 3600, save money and buy 3200. If you tweak, 3600 is generally better dies which can be overclocked/tuned more. If you buy 3200cl16, find crucial ballistix 2x8, they are rev E which are easy to tune. I can run mine at 3600cl14-19-19 on my i5 12400F at 1.47V.

 

[thelawnet]

For ram, if you run xmp there is little dfference between 3200 and 3600, save money and buy 3200. If you tweak, 3600 is generally better dies which can be overclocked/tuned more. If you buy 3200cl16, find crucial ballistix 2x8, they are rev E which are easy to tune. I can run mine at 3600cl14-19-19 on my i5 12400F at 1.47V.

yeah I just bought Crucial Ballistix 2x8 3200cl16. Cheapest RAM on the market as well....

 

[zmeul]

Not everybody knows that "F" means "no iGPU". I want you to think about these +- points

OK, would that be a note and not a negative

 

[thelawnet]

OK, would that be a note and not a negative

The 5600x gets the same negative, and it is a negative, because well, it means you have to buy a grossly overpriced GPU....

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review

Six Zen 3 cores beating eight Zen 2 Cores? That's exactly what's happening with the Ryzen 5 5600X. AMD's massive IPC gain helped it overcome a two-core deficitm, even in productivity tests. The Ryzen 5 5600X redefines what you really need for a high-end gaming PC.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Deleted member 202104]

The 5600x gets the same negative, and it is a negative, because well, it means you have to buy a grossly overpriced GPU....

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review

Six Zen 3 cores beating eight Zen 2 Cores? That's exactly what's happening with the Ryzen 5 5600X. AMD's massive IPC gain helped it overcome a two-core deficitm, even in productivity tests. The Ryzen 5 5600X redefines what you really need for a high-end gaming PC.

www.techpowerup.com

Except it's not. The 12400F is specifically a model without graphics. If you want an IGP, buy the 12400. The 5600X doesn't have the option of a model with graphics.

It's like ordering a hamburger instead of a cheeseburger and writing a review that gives a thumbs-down because it didn't have cheese.

 

[W1zzard]

OK, would that be a note and not a negative

It's like ordering a hamburger instead of a cheeseburger and writing a review that gives a thumbs-down because it didn't have cheese.

You are 100% correct of course, but it's the best I can do within the format of our review conclusion page.
Maybe to explain my thought process with the burger example: it still serves the purpose that readers will wonder "oh right, damn, no cheese. maybe I should actually maybe want to consider buying a cheeseburger?"

 

[Taraquin]

Of course it is a different matter and for a 12400F that's the only matter because there is no other way. You can't use 12400f in any of the previously released boards. Even if you want to use DDR4 Memory you still need to buy new board. This accounts for a huge + to 5600g which makes it actually cheaper.
CPU vs CPU sure, the 12400F wins but you cant picture it that way cause you can't only the 12400F, you need an entire platform and in that aspect, 5600G is cheaper or at least equal in price.

I never said you should buy 12400F if you already have a B450 or similar, that is an argument you made My advice was for those building a NEW system, hence consider that AM4 is at end of life, while B660 will probably support Raptor lake.

If you buy a new system you can get a bit better performance for about the same cost: 5600G+B450=350usd where I live, vs 12400F+B660=360usd(400usd if 12400 and iGPU, you also get PCIe 4.0 and a longer lifespan choosing 12400(F).

Or you can spend more and get a bit better performance if you upgrade cooler (with stock cooler 12400F performs better): 5600X+B550+cheap tower cooler=450usd (420usd with B450, but loose PCIe 4.0 then).

As things are now I would recommend 12400F if bang for bucks is most important, but 5600G or 5600X if upgrading from Ryzen 3xxx or lower. You can disagree if you want, but this is my opinion and I own both 12400F and 5600X and love them both, I use the 5609X myself, and the kids use the 12400F

2 wild cards is that some 300-series MBs get ryzen 5xxx-support now, and some B660 may support overclocking if locked CPUs like 12100F, but still uncertain. Asrock has BFB-support enabling up to 4.4GHz allcore on 12400F and 4.8GHz allcore on 12600, that would destroy 5600X in multicore workloads.

 

[bug]

You are 100% correct of course, but it's the best I can do within the format of our review conclusion page.
Maybe to explain my thought process with the burger example: it still serves the purpose that readers will wonder "oh right, damn, no cheese. maybe I should actually maybe want to consider buying a cheeseburger?"

I feel these things come up often enough, you may want to tweak the format a bit. Maybe add a third category besides pros and cons. Others/notes/neutral/neither-here-nor-there... something like that.

 

[tussinman]

this sub-$200 chip is an absolute beast in gaming with its limiter removed. And STILL managed to stay cooler than AMD under full load and when gaming while consuming no more than 140W? Dayum. Even if AMD did cut their prices for their R5 5600X to remain competitive, it gets beaten by this no E-core Alder Lake CPU easily.

Yeah it's a no brainer. The 12500 and 12600 (non K) aren't even rumored to be much more expensive than the 12400 and both will easily be faster than the 5600x.

You also have the advantage (if rumors are correct) of LGA 1700 being compatabile with 13th gen Raptor Lake chips as well so your not fully deadlocked which is nice

 

[Mussels]

Pros, cons, On the fence?


Like if i was reviewing a B550 board it'd be an "on the fence" or noteworth fact thatx570 supports 2000 gen CPUs while B550 doesnt, whilst not being a negative since people would be super unlikely to buy a 2000 series ryzen these days.

If we want w1zz to add that third category of important trivia, we need a good name for it, that doesn't cause issues for non-native english speakers

 

[thelawnet]

Yeah it's a no brainer. The 12500 and 12600 (non K) aren't even rumored to be much more expensive than the 12400 and both will easily be faster than the 5600x.

You also have the advantage (if rumors are correct) of LGA 1700 being compatabile with 13th gen Raptor Lake chips as well so your not fully deadlocked which is nice

Rumoured?

Right now I can buy

12100f for $121
12100 for n/a
12400f for $188
12400 for $220
12500 for $235
12600 for $260
12600kf for $300
12600k for $327
12700 for n/a
12700f for $348

The value parts are 12400f (12100f suffers from mboard cost and is not worth it) and12500 (GPU plus more speed).

The 12500 dominates the 5600g ($270) on CPU performance but loses on GPU. Motherboards are much cheaper for 5600g, however in normal times you'd do better to just buy the 12400f and append the money on a GPU, unfortunately right now $50 goes nowhere in the GPU market so the overpriced 5600g, still looks very good.

12700f is a better buy than the 12600kf because if you are spending $300+ on a CPU it doesn't make sense to cheap out with fewer cores

 

[tussinman]

Rumoured?

Yeah "rumored price" because where I live not a single official intel vendor (best buy, microcenter, B&H) have sold any of those 2 processors I listed. They either don't have it listed or they have a place-holder listing with "coming soon" or "notify when available.

Won't know the actual legtimate price till next month. Same with the B660 and H670 motherboards, listings are up but marked as "coming soon", "pre-order" or "estimate delievery 2-4 weeks"

 

[Parn]

The price/performance is indeed very attractive with the 12400F. I'm wondering if Intel is going to release a 8 P-core only i7 ADL also?

 

[Taraquin]

A thing to note is that there are 2 versions of 12400(F), C0 which is a 8P+e-cores where 2P and all ecores are disabled, and there is the H0 which is a true 6P only chips. The first chip may have higher latency, but may be easier to cool due to larger die, not that 12400 produces that much heat anyways. There may be differences in IMC since the C0 has the IMC of a i7\i9.

 

[Assimilator]

The price/performance is indeed very attractive with the 12400F. I'm wondering if Intel is going to release a 8 P-core only i7 ADL also?

Absolutely not.

• i7 has always been 8 cores starting at an xx700 SKU and going up; since 12700 is 8P + 4E, a hypothetical 8P + 0E part would have to slot in below 12700, and there is literally no room in the stack for such a product. i5 has always been limited to 6 cores so no room there either.
• Considering the low complexity of the E-cores compared to the P-cores, the former are not the part of the silicon that are likely to cause a chip to be defective. In other words, it's unlikely you'll get a chip with 8 functional P-cores but one or more defective E-cores, so it really doesn't make sense for Intel to reserve a SKU for that unlikely scenario.
• The push from Intel is E-cores for i7 and higher SKUs, to allow product differentiation. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/1716...-lake-22-new-desktops-cpus-8-new-laptoph-cpus:

In short, don't expect a cheaper P-core-only 12700. Maybe next generation, but I doubt it.

A thing to note is that there are 2 versions of 12400(F), C0 which is a 8P+e-cores where 2P and all ecores are disabled, and there is the H0 which is a true 6P only chips. The first chip may have higher latency, but may be easier to cool due to larger die, not that 12400 produces that much heat anyways.

I'm gonna have to ask for a source on that... while harvesting slightly defective dies for downrange products is standard, such a die would still have the increased L3 of the i7/i9 (12400 is 18MB, i7/i9 is up to 30MB), unless of course Intel has managed to fuse off L3 portions too (something I've not heard of before). The end result is that C0 would be a vastly superior chip, which would IMO justify a completely separate SKU; Intel doesn't like giving things away for free.

There may be differences in IMC since the C0 has the IMC of a i7\i9.

IMC is identical across the entire ADL range - two channels of DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200. The CPU SKU and chipset combination is what limits using higher speeds.

 

[bug]

Absolutely not.

• i7 has always been 8 cores starting at an xx700 SKU and going up; since 12700 is 8P + 4E, a hypothetical 8P + 0E part would have to slot in below 12700, and there is literally no room in the stack for such a product. i5 has always been limited to 6 cores so no room there either.
• Considering the low complexity of the E-cores compared to the P-cores, the former are not the part of the silicon that are likely to cause a chip to be defective. In other words, it's unlikely you'll get a chip with 8 functional P-cores but one or more defective E-cores, so it really doesn't make sense for Intel to reserve a SKU for that unlikely scenario.
• The push from Intel is E-cores for i7 and higher SKUs, to allow product differentiation. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/1716...-lake-22-new-desktops-cpus-8-new-laptoph-cpus:

View attachment 233238

In short, don't expect a cheaper P-core-only 12700. Maybe next generation, but I doubt it.

That picture basically disproves what you were arguing: if it makes sense to disable 4 E core on i5, why won't it make sense to disable 4 cores on an i7?
I don't expect we'll an all P cores i7 either. But not for the reasons you gave

 

[Taraquin]

Absolutely not.

• i7 has always been 8 cores starting at an xx700 SKU and going up; since 12700 is 8P + 4E, a hypothetical 8P + 0E part would have to slot in below 12700, and there is literally no room in the stack for such a product. i5 has always been limited to 6 cores so no room there either.
• Considering the low complexity of the E-cores compared to the P-cores, the former are not the part of the silicon that are likely to cause a chip to be defective. In other words, it's unlikely you'll get a chip with 8 functional P-cores but one or more defective E-cores, so it really doesn't make sense for Intel to reserve a SKU for that unlikely scenario.
• The push from Intel is E-cores for i7 and higher SKUs, to allow product differentiation. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/1716...-lake-22-new-desktops-cpus-8-new-laptoph-cpus:

View attachment 233238

In short, don't expect a cheaper P-core-only 12700. Maybe next generation, but I doubt it.


I'm gonna have to ask for a source on that... while harvesting slightly defective dies for downrange products is standard, such a die would still have the increased L3 of the i7/i9 (12400 is 18MB, i7/i9 is up to 30MB), unless of course Intel has managed to fuse off L3 portions too (something I've not heard of before). The end result is that C0 would be a vastly superior chip, which would IMO justify a completely separate SKU; Intel doesn't like giving things away for free.


IMC is identical across the entire ADL range - two channels of DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200. The CPU SKU and chipset combination is what limits using higher speeds.

From Tomshardware: '
MSI recently confirmed via a livestream that Intel uses two different dies for the Alder Lake series: One die has eight P-cores and eight E-cores (8P+8E), and another has just six P-cores (6+0). Obviously, the latter die is much smaller and thus more cost-effective, therefore making far more sense for use in the non-hybrid Alder Lake chips with six or fewer cores.

However, leaked testing indicates that the Core i5-12400 chips vary on a chip-to-chip basis and can come with either die type. That means C0 stepping chips like ours actually have a total of eight P-cores and eight E-cores, but Intel disables the extra cores to trim it down to a 6+0 design. Naturally, that helps the company sell larger dies that encounter defects during manufacturing. It could also help improve supply and manufacturing efficiency when there aren't enough 'perfect' defect-free 6+0 dies available.

The physical difference between the dies — the 8P+8E design's ring bus extends to cover the disabled E-cores and P-Cores — implies that the H0-stepping 6+0 dies will have lower core-to-core latencies. That could theoretically lead to slightly faster performance under certain conditions. Additionally, anecdotal evidence also suggests that the H0 chips require less power. We're working to source an H0 chip for comparison and will follow up as necessary. '

In cpu-z my 12400F has H0 stepping.

On skylake, comet lake etc it was usual that you need the top model to achieve highest ram oc. Typically you could do 4600+ on a 10900K, but a 10400F might not do more than 4000 not matter what SA volt you pulled. It seems binning is both done on IMC aswell atleast for prior gens. I've seen several do 4000+ gear 1 on 12900K, but very few can do 4000+ on 12600K, and for the locked oarts 3400-3800 seems usual, but we generally pair them with cheaper MBs which can contribute.

 

[Mussels]

Absolutely not.

• i7 has always been 8 cores starting at an xx700 SKU and going up; since 12700 is 8P + 4E, a hypothetical 8P + 0E part would have to slot in below 12700, and there is literally no room in the stack for such a product. i5 has always been limited to 6 cores so no room there either.
• Considering the low complexity of the E-cores compared to the P-cores, the former are not the part of the silicon that are likely to cause a chip to be defective. In other words, it's unlikely you'll get a chip with 8 functional P-cores but one or more defective E-cores, so it really doesn't make sense for Intel to reserve a SKU for that unlikely scenario.
• The push from Intel is E-cores for i7 and higher SKUs, to allow product differentiation. See https://www.anandtech.com/show/1716...-lake-22-new-desktops-cpus-8-new-laptoph-cpus:

View attachment 233238

In short, don't expect a cheaper P-core-only 12700. Maybe next generation, but I doubt it.


I'm gonna have to ask for a source on that... while harvesting slightly defective dies for downrange products is standard, such a die would still have the increased L3 of the i7/i9 (12400 is 18MB, i7/i9 is up to 30MB), unless of course Intel has managed to fuse off L3 portions too (something I've not heard of before). The end result is that C0 would be a vastly superior chip, which would IMO justify a completely separate SKU; Intel doesn't like giving things away for free.


IMC is identical across the entire ADL range - two channels of DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200. The CPU SKU and chipset combination is what limits using higher speeds.

Intel flipflop on core counts in each stack every generation or two, so while you can be confident they may follow their recent history you cannot be certain of it continuing
Look how many years we had dual core quad and hex core i7's (laptop) on the market at the same time as four, six, eight and ten core i7's in desktops

Look at the 10900k to 11900K, suddenly dropping two cores from the top i7 - and these were both compatible with the same mobos.