AMD Ryzen 7 5700X vs. Intel Core i7-12700F: Best Value 8-Core Gaming CPU

[Steve]

It's time to compare the Ryzen 7 5700X against the Core i7-12700F, two relatively affordable and powerful 8-core CPUs. We've got a 23 game benchmark covering 1080p and 1440p resolutions.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2492-ryzen-5700x-vs-core-i7-12700f/

 

[takaozo]

From my point of view both AM4 and 1700 are with no upgrade path, since I only upgrade when replacement has 50% higher performance for the same money I purchased initial one.
AM4 is on last iteration and for 1700 I dont think gen 13 will bring 50% more perf.
But if I have to buy another PC now, I still go with AM4 and not the socket bender Cpu sag Intel 1700.

 

[takaozo]

And for the Intel system you forgot to add the price for washers or anti-bending frame.

 

[redhat]

Personally, I would pick i7-12700F as it is much more powerful in multi-threading and from performance per watt (efficiency) perspective it is similar to 5700x.

"Then when running core-heavy workloads, the 12700F and 5700X power usage isn't that different"

@Steven Walton, on Gamers Nexus there is a chart that include both 12700K vs 5700X

the difference is about 90 watt.
Of course, what matters is efficiency (performance per watt) though not only AMD fans might care about Watts!

 

[Lionvibez]

The 12700F is a 12 core processor 8?

 

[takaozo]

The 12700F is a 12 core processor 8?

Got to love those articles that make me open Internet search for specifications of reviewed parts, right?

 

[Neutronman]

Interesting comparison, however I feel that using the 5800X probably was a better choice than the 5700X, especially as you can buy this cpu for less than the 5700X. Amazon usa has it listed at $274 and the 12700F at $312. Not really apples to apples, especially as the Intel part has 12 cores and 20 threads opposed to straight 8/16.

Outside of this, I am impressed with what Intel have done with 12th gen Alder Lake.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Got to love those articles that make me open Internet search for specifications of reviewed parts, right?

yeah ... it is more like a 10.5 core vs 8 core ... so the loss margins in some games are to be expected since those cpu bound games can execute more OP/s on the efficiency cores. such a weird world we compute in. I do not like the efficiency core gimmick .. just turn off the cores, and memory controllers feeding disabled cores when power saving ... and keep it all BIG core counts. I imagine a 10-performance core system would score the same and draw almost the same power at idle and load. keep the laptop parts in laptops intel

 

[CowsGotMilk]

Did Intel fixed all those bugs that comes from mixed p-core and e-core design?

 

[deksman2]

Personally, I would pick i7-12700F as it is much more powerful in multi-threading and from performance per watt (efficiency) perspective it is similar to 5700x.

"Then when running core-heavy workloads, the 12700F and 5700X power usage isn't that different"

@Steven Walton, on Gamers Nexus there is a chart that include both 12700K vs 5700X

the difference is about 90 watt.
Of course, what matters is efficiency (performance per watt) though not only AMD fans might care about Watts!

The difference in power consumption is at least 50% between A.L and Zen 3 in general (especially in tasks that stress all cores properly, such as productivity/rendering etc.).

This is something I see gets overlooked by quite a bit... plus, this article is comparing an 8c/16th Zen 3 part with 12c/20th on Intel's end.

With AM4 platform coming to an end in terms of support cycle... Intel 'may' be a better option, but then again, Raptor Lake would be their only upgrade path. Similarly, if a person gets 5700x now, they COULD technically upgrade to 5900x or 5950x later anyway and still get a decent performance boost for greater power efficiency vs other A.L. parts and probably even Raptor Lake if most recent leaks are taken into account.

But, I'd sooner opt to wait for Zen 4 and instead get that with AM5 (which will have support for the next 4 or 5 years... so, Zen 5 and Zen 6 it seems).

I think we're too close into upcoming release of newest parts to make a determination now.
So, even if one gets 12700F now, they could only upgrade to R.L but not beyond that.
And if they wait for Zen 4 instead, they would have a much more 'open' upgrade path compared to Intel.

But, either one they have, they could easily wait for 3 or 4 years after this and then replace the whole system anyway... so there's that.

 

[maxxcool7421]

If ZEN 3+ is any indicator AMD should be able to keep running all big cores, and still hacve better power consumption with proper tuning in the bios. ZEN3+'s ability to shut down cores, lanes, cache segments, ccx's memory controllers independently or in combination is really good and very ARM like.

 

[deksman2]

If ZEN 3+ is any indicator AMD should be able to keep running all big cores, and still hacve better power consumption with proper tuning in the bios. ZEN3+'s ability to shut down cores, lanes, cache segments, ccx's memory controllers independently or in combination is really good and very ARM like.

Indeed.
Given existing leaks from both Intel and AMD, I think raw performance will be comparable between the Zen 4 and Raptor Lake... but, power draw wise, Zen 4 will consume 50% less power.

That said, AMD also mentioned they will be incorporating E-cores in their Zen 5 design... until then, Zen 4 should be able to stand on its own easily enough against Raptor Lake.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Indeed.
Given existing leaks from both Intel and AMD, I think raw performance will be comparable between the Zen 4 and Raptor Lake... but, power draw wise, Zen 4 will consume 50% less power.

That said, AMD also mentioned they will be incorporating E-cores in their Zen 5 design... until then, Zen 4 should be able to stand on its own easily enough against Raptor Lake.

yeahhhhhh ... zen5 .. big sad with E cores

 

[DonPatryk]

This article is pretty pointless as previous tests proved that 12700f is faster than 5800x. Actually 12700f beats all AMD CPUs for gaming but 5800x3D, which is $200 more. 12700f in the productivity lays between 5900x and 5950x which are much more expensive. Even 12600k beats 5800x in productivity and it is on par in gaming before overclocking. After 5800x and 12600k are overclocked Intel beats AMD in gaming for this CPUs. 12700f is almost as fast as 12900k in gaming. Comparing it to 5700x has little sense. Besides AMD still have some upgrade path on lga1700 socket for the next CPU gen release. You can still argue that AMD may release 5600x3D, but it would be a different story then. Long story short 12700f is no brainer paired with b660 motherboard. 5700x makes only sense if you already have AMD system. Saying that I have 9900k @ 5GHz which I am upgrading to 12700f, and 5800x in other PC.

 

[dalpilot]

This article is pretty pointless as previous tests proved that 12700f is faster than 5800x. Actually 12700f beats all AMD CPUs for gaming but 5800x3D, which is $200 more. 12700f in the productivity lays between 5900x and 5950x which are much more expensive. Even 12600k beats 5800x in productivity and it is on par in gaming before overclocking. After 5800x and 12600k are overclocked Intel beats AMD in gaming for this CPUs. 12700f is almost as fast as 12900k in gaming. Comparing it to 5700x has little sense. Besides AMD still have some upgrade path on lga1700 socket for the next CPU gen release. You can still argue that AMD may release 5600x3D, but it would be a different story then. Long story short 12700f is no brainer paired with b660 motherboard. 5700x makes only sense if you already have AMD system. Saying that I have 9900k @ 5GHz which I am upgrading to 12700f, and 5800x in other PC.

The problem with Intel since AMD went to Zen architecture is that Intel (at best) gives one generation of upgrades whereas AMD gives you FOUR generations of upgrades (1600, 2600, 3600, 5600x) and with less expensive (while still being feature rich). If you just upgraded from the Ryzen 5 1600 to the Ryzen 5 5600x (read about the 5600 not being a slower binned 5600x).
I have been ecstatic with the general performance of both my Ryzen 5 1600 AND Ryzen 5 3600. People are so spoiled - remember when Intel had essentially no competition for 15 years.
Amazing how Intel responds to a real threat once Zen came knocked it out of the park.
Probably won't upgrade until AM5. For the most part AMD Zen has led with having more cores/threads than similarly priced Intel. And, for those on a budget its really hard to beat the 5600x @ $174 6/12 plus $150 MB beats the hell out of any Intel in that price range.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

And, for those on a budget its really hard to beat the 5600x @ $174 6/12 plus $150 MB beats the hell out of any Intel in that price range.

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162047
ASRock B660M STEEL LEGEND $109.99

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-12400f-core-i5-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118360
Intel Core i5-12400F $154.99 + $5 off w/ promo code FTSBUAA55, limited offer

 

[takaozo]

And, for those on a budget its really hard to beat the 5600x @ $174 6/12 plus $150 MB beats the hell out of any Intel in that price range.

Got the same deal here.
5600x 180USD
32GB 160USD
MSI B550 100USD
and a 20 USD cooler, SE-224-XT, but keeps the beast under 70 celsius

 

[Strawman]

The difference in power consumption is at least 50% between A.L and Zen 3 in general (especially in tasks that stress all cores properly, such as productivity/rendering etc.).

This is something I see gets overlooked by quite a bit... plus, this article is comparing an 8c/16th Zen 3 part with 12c/20th on Intel's end.

With AM4 platform coming to an end in terms of support cycle... Intel 'may' be a better option, but then again, Raptor Lake would be their only upgrade path. Similarly, if a person gets 5700x now, they COULD technically upgrade to 5900x or 5950x later anyway and still get a decent performance boost for greater power efficiency vs other A.L. parts and probably even Raptor Lake if most recent leaks are taken into account.

But, I'd sooner opt to wait for Zen 4 and instead get that with AM5 (which will have support for the next 4 or 5 years... so, Zen 5 and Zen 6 it seems).

I think we're too close into upcoming release of newest parts to make a determination now.
So, even if one gets 12700F now, they could only upgrade to R.L but not beyond that.
And if they wait for Zen 4 instead, they would have a much more 'open' upgrade path compared to Intel.

But, either one they have, they could easily wait for 3 or 4 years after this and then replace the whole system anyway... so there's that.

You realise you dont have to run them at 240w right? The only people that run all core taska at 240w are the people that care about the performance, and those who want to complain that they are inefficient. Im running my 12900k at 160w and it gets 28k cbr23 score

 

[Strawman]

Indeed.
Given existing leaks from both Intel and AMD, I think raw performance will be comparable between the Zen 4 and Raptor Lake... but, power draw wise, Zen 4 will consume 50% less power.

That said, AMD also mentioned they will be incorporating E-cores in their Zen 5 design... until then, Zen 4 should be able to stand on its own easily enough against Raptor Lake.

I know people are not aware of this, but let me tell you, the golden cove cores (the pcores on alderlake) are way, way,, way more efficient than the zen 3 cores. They will most likely still be way way way more efficient than the zen 4 cores as well. For example a 12900k or a 12700k with ecores off (so basically just 8 gc cores) can get a score of 16200 in cbr23 at 65watts. You know how many watts does a 5800x need to reach that score? Around 150.

Nothing gets close to the golden cove cores efficiency.

 

[Lionvibez]

They will most likely still be way way way more efficient than the zen 4 cores as well.

This is opinion not fact since there are no review samples of Zen 4 out.

 

[Strawman]

This is opinion not fact since there are no review samples of Zen 4 out.

Yes, its an opinion based on the data. It will take a miracle to make a zen 4 core more efficient than a gc core at same wattage. The difference right now is more than 100% between a fully tuned 8+0 12900k and a fully turned 5800x. Best score ive ever seen was 16900 at 160watts. 8 gc cores can get that score at 75 watts

 

[Lionvibez]

Yes, its an opinion based on the data. It will take a miracle to make a zen 4 core more efficient than a gc core at same wattage. The difference right now is more than 100% between a fully tuned 8+0 12900k and a fully turned 5800x. Best score ive ever seen was 16900 at 160watts. 8 gc cores can get that score at 75 watts

You have no way to verify that boss sorry.

 

[Strawman]

You have no way to verify that boss sorry.

To verify what?

 

[Lionvibez]

To verify what?

"way more efficient than the zen 4 cores as well"

you don't have a review sample or the data to backup this statement.

 

[Strawman]

"way more efficient than the zen 4 cores as well"

you don't have a review sample or the data to backup this statement.

We dont have a review sample so we dont know either way. Im not claiming absolute knowledge, im saying that based on current data and the complete history of cpus, its very unlikely that amd can close a gap THAT big. We are talking about a more than 100% efficiency gap. Based on the past 5 years of zen cores, im not even sure zen 5 can do it, let alone 4.