Intel Core i5-12600K CPU-Z benchmarks possibly leaked

[Daniel Sims]

Rumor mill: Another supposed benchmark leak earlier this month already suggested Intel's upcoming Alder Lake Core i5 processors will outperform AMD's counterpart, the Ryzen 5 5600X. This week, more benchmarks seem to provide a better picture of different levels of performance.

Two leaks appeared on Twitter over the weekend claiming to show CPU-Z benchmarks for the Core i5-12600K at stock and overclocked speeds. The person who posted the overclocked benchmark says they can't confirm whether or not it's real.

A couple weeks ago, rumors already indicated the i5-12400 outdid the 5600X. According to that leak, the processor will have a base clock of 2.5GHz, boosting up to 4.0GHz on multi-core and 4.4GHz on one core. With six cores and 12 threads, it scored 681.7 points in a single-thread CPU-Z test and 4,983.8 points in a multi-thread test.

stock https://t.co/vgqQ87yFle pic.twitter.com/gZy61qOInl

— HXL (@9550pro) October 23, 2021

According to the latest leaks, by comparison the stock 12600K has a 3.7GHz base clock. It boosts up to 4.5GHz on multi-core and 4.9GHz on single-core, and has 16 threads. Its single-thread CPU-Z score is 746.2 points and its multi-thread score is 7058.1 points. The overclocked CPU-Z scores are partially censored in the Twitter screenshot, showing "79X.X" and "72XX.X" for the single-thread and multi-thread scores, respectively. Those overclock numbers are within spitting distance of reported scores for the i7-12700K.

Amazon Netherlands has estimated a price of $311 for the 12600K. It's expected that Intel will formally reveal the Alder Lake CPUs at an event later this week, and put them on sale next week.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/91920-intel-core-i5-12600k-cpu-z-benchmarks-possibly.html

 

[passwordistaco]

And how do these scores compare to the 5600X?

 

[pencea]

Considering how hot and power hungry they can get not to mentioned being first gen of a lot of stuff, I'll still happily take a more mature Ryzen platform even if it does perform slower than Intel's Alder Lake processors.

 

[Nobina]

I'm more interested to compare 5600X refresh to 12600K, new vs. new.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Considering how hot and power hungry they can get not to mentioned being first gen of a lot of stuff, I'll still happily take a more mature Ryzen platform even if it does perform slower than Intel's Alder Lake processors.

14nm Intel is hot and power hungry. This is 10nm which should be a lot better. I wouldn’t just presume these chips are going to be as hot and power heavy as previous Intel chips for that reason.

It’s actually also possible that the power efficiency cores might give this chip some more power efficiency if they can be leveraged properly.

 

[Dimitriid]

And how do these scores compare to the 5600X?

Quick Google search shows Single threaded 5600x at 643 and multi 4814. But bear in mind however than the 3600x has CPU-Z scores of 520/4182 so the single core results means Adler Lake beats the 5600x by less than that margin.

If I had to guess, numbers indicate intel might be 10-15% higher at probably much worst temps and power used. Which honestly is not looking great for intel: remember they need to compete against up to that much performance or more for Ryzen 3+ just with the move to that 3D VNand L3 cache thingie, probably a much larger gain for Ryzen 4, all while doing it for literally a fraction of the power.

 

[passwordistaco]

Quick Google search shows Single threaded 5600x at 643 and multi 4814. But bear in mind however than the 3600x has CPU-Z scores of 520/4182 so the single core results means Adler Lake beats the 5600x by less than that margin.

Thanks. When an article states below the headline "Handedly beating the 5600X", and in the first paragraph "will outperform...the Ryzen 5 5600X", you'd think they'd include the 5600X numbers.

14nm Intel is hot and power hungry. This is 10nm which should be a lot better.

11000 series is 10nm. 11000 series is hot and power hungry.

Edit: I confused mobile and desktop 11000 chips. As pointed out below, Rocket Lake is backported to 14nm.

 

[paul1122]

How does this brand new Intel chip do against the Athlon? Hopefully it does well against it, or you'll lose a well, friend let's say, lol.

 

[koblongata]

Why did I read "hardly" beating 5600x lol.

 

[hahahanoobs]

And how do these scores compare to the 5600X?

I get 669 / 5150 with 5600X @ 4.85GHz (PB2+CO).

 

[hahahanoobs]

Thanks. When an article states below the headline "Handedly beating the 5600X", and in the first paragraph "will outperform...the Ryzen 5 5600X", you'd think they'd include the 5600X numbers.


11000 series is 10nm. 11000 series is hot and power hungry.

11th gen was a backport....

 

[Guberian]

I see the writers are getting lazy and using the same thumbnail again and again. They also change the thumbnails in articles a period of time after releasing to get people to click on them again.

 

[Watzupken]

I believe the 12600K will surely be faster when you consider the fact that its a 6 P cores + 4 E cores. So if they run in tandem, there are significantly more cores. Single core result will likely be higher with the Golden Cove cores. Therefore I feel it is unsurprising to me. But again, at what cost to power requirement is the key question. Considering the 5600X sips power where it should cap out below 90W at stock, it is unlikely Intel can match that number.

 

[Yenega]

Considering how hot and power hungry they can get not to mentioned being first gen of a lot of stuff, I'll still happily take a more mature Ryzen platform even if it does perform slower than Intel's Alder Lake processors.

Why would you even touch AM4 at this point - Zen 4 (5nm) on AM5 is late 2022 or early 2023 and this platform is going to fight Raptor Lake at Intel 4 (Former Intel 7nm).

I look forward to see Alder Lake perf even tho I'm not touching it, leaks look decent and I doubt 3D cache will be enough for AMD to deliver this performance, but we will see

Why do you talk about watt usage, at stock they will not use alot of watts and still beat AMD

My 5900X at 4.8 GHz can use 240 watts under full synthetic burn-in, it's pointless to look at watt usage in synthetics, I'm around 100 watts in gaming, and so is most Intel chips too

My 9900K at 5.2 GHz can use 250 watts in synthetic but still around 100 watts in gaming

Peakwatts with all cores pegged with synthetic AVX loads has nothing to do with real world watt usage

 

[Lionvibez]

14nm Intel is hot and power hungry. This is 10nm which should be a lot better. I wouldn’t just presume these chips are going to be as hot and power heavy as previous Intel chips for that reason.

It’s actually also possible that the power efficiency cores might give this chip some more power efficiency if they can be leveraged properly.

They have already shown the 12900K doing 330 watts on its 8 performance cores while overclocked. This chip is still going to use a fair amount of power don't expect huge gains from 14nm since intel has to clock these fairly high.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

11000 series is 10nm. 11000 series is hot and power hungry.

Wrong. 11000 series is backported sunny cove on 14nm, and a total trainwreck.

 

[Sausagemeat]

They have already shown the 12900K doing 330 watts on its 8 performance cores while overclocked. This chip is still going to use a fair amount of power don't expect huge gains from 14nm since intel has to clock these fairly high.

Tbh my expectation is a faster chip, not a more efficient chip. Intel knows that performance will sell its parts, not efficiency. But these parts are more efficient than before. The 330w you quote was actually for the 12900K which is a 16 core part, not an 8 core. 8 high perf and 8 efficiency cores but benches similar to a 5950X and is cheaper. This is only 100w over the stock power consumption of a 5950X. So if that leak was correct these Intel parts at stock are going to be close enough to make it not matter.

All the AMD fans will criticise Intel for its efficiency and no one will listen. Consumers will go with the faster part in games and will not care about the efficiency, as always in this market.

Thats if it even is faster, its not out yet. It could be a massive fail like Bulldozer lol.

 

[Lionvibez]

Tbh my expectation is a faster chip, not a more efficient chip. Intel knows that performance will sell its parts, not efficiency. But these parts are more efficient than before. The 330w you quote was actually for the 12900K which is a 16 core part, not an 8 core. 8 high perf and 8 efficiency cores but benches similar to a 5950X and is cheaper. This is only 100w over the stock power consumption of a 5950X. So if that leak was correct these Intel parts at stock are going to be close enough to make it not matter.

I wrote 12900k in my original post on purpose no correction needed there. And that was 330watts on the performance cores you cannot overclock the E cores.

This chip will use less power but it won't be close to the chip they are comparing it to. I'll will be looking at power consumption in the reviews as it does matter to me.

 

[Sausagemeat]

I wrote 12900k in my original post on purpose no correction needed there. And that was 330watts on the performance cores you cannot overclock the E cores.

On your original post you did put 8 cores when the 12900K has 16. I understand the efficiency cores can’t be overclocked but they are still used and still going at 3.7ghz. they clearly make a difference. The 12900K is a 16 core part and supposedly priced to compete between a 5900X and 5950X

Its interesting to note that this leak also contained bench numbers that edged the 5950X in multi threaded and thrashed it in single threaded performance.

If these leaked benchmarks are true then very few people are going to buy the worse performing and more expensive Ryzen 5000 series just because it uses a few watts less overall. AMD will need to cut prices.

AMD fans will be able to thank Intel for cheaper prices! Just like they have been claiming we need to thank AMD for Intels cheaper prices since Ryzen launched. Lol.

 

[Lionvibez]

On your original post you did put 8 cores when the 12900K has 16. I understand the efficiency cores can’t be overclocked but they are still used and still going at 3.7ghz. they clearly make a difference. The 12900K is a 16 core part and supposedly priced to compete between a 5900X and 5950X

Yes because as I said you can only overclock the performance cores I can read I'm well aware it has 16 cores. not sure why you keep going back to that.

Its interesting to note that this leak also contained bench numbers that edged the 5950X in multi threaded and thrashed it in single threaded performance.

This below is irrelevant and it makes you seem like a fan boy for constantly bringing it up. Don't be concerned about what AMD fans are doing or thinking just do you.

If these leaked benchmarks are true then very few people are going to buy the worse performing and more expensive Ryzen 5000 series just because it uses a few watts less overall. AMD will need to cut prices.

AMD fans will be able to thank Intel for cheaper prices! Just like they have been claiming we need to thank AMD for Intels cheaper prices since Ryzen launched. Lol.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Yes because as I said you can only overclock the performance cores I can read I'm well aware it has 16 cores. not sure why you keep going back to that.

This below is irrelevant and it makes you seem like a fan boy for constantly bringing it up. Don't be concerned about what AMD fans are doing or thinking just do you.

Actually I’ve mentioned the leaked benchmark scores exactly once on this thread, im not “constantly bringing it up” at all lol. If that’s too much for you to handle then you’re probably the fanboy pal…

Of course neutrals like me are very happy to see the performance crown switching between these companies. It would be bad for competition in the industry if Intel fail to beat AMD with Alder lake.

 

[Lionvibez]

Actually I’ve mentioned the leaked benchmark scores exactly once on this thread, im not “constantly bringing it up” at all lol. If that’s too much for you to handle then you’re probably the fanboy pal…

Jesus christ dude what is wrong with you?
You keep bring up that its 16 cores when that is bloody obvious.

Of course neutrals like me are very happy to see the performance crown switching between these companies. It would be bad for competition in the industry if Intel fail to beat AMD with Alder lake.

User name checks out. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Jesus christ dude what is wrong with you?
You keep bring up that its 16 cores when that is bloody obvious.

I mentioned it once to correct you incorrectly mentioning that it was 8 cores using all that power...

 

[maroon1]

I hope techspot to test Alder Lake power consumption in realistic usage and not useless stress test

Also, I like to see power consumption when doing light and moderate tasks

Quick Google search shows Single threaded 5600x at 643 and multi 4814. But bear in mind however than the 3600x has CPU-Z scores of 520/4182 so the single core results means Adler Lake beats the 5600x by less than that margin.

If I had to guess, numbers indicate intel might be 10-15% higher at probably much worst temps and power used. Which honestly is not looking great for intel: remember they need to compete against up to that much performance or more for Ryzen 3+ just with the move to that 3D VNand L3 cache thingie, probably a much larger gain for Ryzen 4, all while doing it for literally a fraction of the power.

Which Alder lake ? i5 12400 or 12600K ??? Because the article has score for these two CPU's

12400 does not have E cores.... i5 12400 scoring 681.7 in single-thread and 4,983.8 multi.... Which is better than 5600X but not by much

12600K score 746.2 in single and 7058.1 multi.... Which is much better than 5600X, and even better than 5800X and i9 11900K