Intel Core i5-12600K Review: 5600X Defeated

[Yenega]

Like expected too, because Intel used own fabs, this CPU comes at least 4 years late (process) or 2 years (architecture).

Also AMD also had good amount of CPU's available when Zen2 and Zen3 launched. Nothing special here.

AMD struggled to deliver 5900X and especially 5950X for months and months post release. They pretty much only had a few samples ready for reviews. Prices were above MSRP too.

AMD mostly shipped and sold 5600X and 5800X, this is common knowledge. Tons of threads all over the web confirming this.

I waited 3-4 months to get my 5900X after actual release, a friend of mine waited 5-6 months for his 5950X, he almost cancelled his order. So no, AMD did not have a good amount ready at launch

Alot of 5900X customers settled with a 5800X instead. Some that wanted 5950X settled with 5900X instead. 5950X took 6-9 months to actually be IN STOCK in bigger numbers at more than a few retailers. Huge paperlaunch.

However not many people wanted 5950X, this just shows how little numbers this was shipped in, 5900X should have been easy to buy, but it was not either. AMD had a ton of backorders on those two chips.

Zen 3 was a 50/50 launch. Top-end SKUs were pretty much a paperlaunch. Just like Radeon 6800 and 6900 series.

This is also part of the reason why AMD charged 300 dollars for a 6c/12t chip with Zen 3. Back in 2017/2018 you got 8c/16t for 300 dollars and AMD left out non-X parts by purpose with 5000 series too.

AMD took forever to deliver. TSMC is overbooked, had several outages, shipping issues etc.

 

[MarcusNumb]

Well I don't think we need to be aggressive fan boys here to debate whether AMD or Intel is the best. This competition is getting more and more interesting and as customers, we are all getting benefits. Let's save money for our upgrades xD

 

[Sausagemeat]

Look how Steve compares launch MSRP prices in this very 12600k review you just read mate. Look at the start of the article for the actual table, it is a bit of a mess here.

i9 12900K i7 12700K i5 12600K i9 11900K i711700K
MSRP $ $650 $450 $320 $540 $400
Release Date November 2021 March 2021

See how Steve does it mate? He compares launch MSRP to launch MSRP, not discounted/raised prices on the 11th or 12th gen CPUs, he uses Intels official launch MSRP for both 11th and 12th gen, to determine how much Intel raised or lowered prices from gen to gen. Same as every publication does. And we do the same for AMD.

Here is AMDs official launch prices for 3000 and 5000 series. Now compare the 3600X to the 5600X (not the 3600 because the 5600X replaced the 3600X, not the 3600), and compare the 3800X to the 5800X (not the 3700X because the 5800X replaced the 3800X, not the 3700X). Scroll down a bit in the articles for the full 3000 series lineup launch MSRP prices:

3000 series launch MSRP.

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Review: the New Mid-Range CPU Leader

Out of the box, the Ryzen 5 3600X is the best processor in its price range for gaming and productivity, marking a massive shift in the mid-range competitive landscape.

www.tomshardware.com

AMD Ryzen 3000 Announced: Five CPUs, 12 Cores for $499, Up to 4.6 GHz, PCIe 4.0, Coming 7/7

www.anandtech.com

AMD Ryzen 3000 release date, price, specs, and everything we know

Third gen Ryzen will bring 7nm, improved performance, and faster clockspeeds to AMD's CPUs

www.pcgamer.com

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X review: The new best mid-range CPU

AMD's mid-range flagship CPU is everything you need and more, offering a fantastic value proposition.

www.windowscentral.com

5000 series launch MSRP.

AMD Zen 3 Ryzen 5000 Price, Benchmarks, Specs and More

The Zen 3 cometh

www.tomshardware.com

According to all publications, the 5600X was $50 higher launch MSRP compared to the 3600X, the 5800X was $50 higher launch MSRP compared to the 3800X, same goes for the 5900X and 5950X over the 3900X and 3950X. AMD didn't have 3600 and 3700X replacements at 5000 launch, only 3600X and 3800X replacements with the 5600X and 5800X.

Zen2

• AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: $749 (about £570, AU$1,070)
• AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: $499 (about £390, AU$720)
• AMD Ryzen 7 3800X: $399 (about £310, AU$580)
• AMD Ryzen 5 3600X: $249 (about £200, AU$360)

(I removed the 3600/3700X, as they are irreverent as they had no 5000 series replacements at launch).

• Zen 3 MSRP

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: $799 (around £620, AU$1,100)

• AMD Ryzen 9 5900X: $549 (around £420, AU$760)
• AMD Ryzen 7 5800X: $449 (around £350, AU$630)
• AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: $299 (around £230, AU$420)

And just as Steve used launch MSRP vs launch MSRP to determine Intels pricing adjustments (and not discounted/raised prices that are available now or back then), we do the same for AMD mate. And all publications do exactly the same as Steve did to determine AMD and Intels gen to gen pricing adjustments.

The method you are using mate, is your own personal system of using discounted 3000 prices and incorrect SKU models, and comparing that to launch MSRP prices for 5000 series, to show 5000 series launch MSRP was much higher than the official $50 it actually was vs 3000 series equivalents official launch MSRP SKU vs SKU. But your method goes against the accepted industry/publication wide standard for determining accurate gen to gen pricing increases/decreases for AMD and Intel (and NVIDIA GPU gen to gen GPU pricing as well).

Discounts/raised prices of course should be factored into a buying decision, and many publications make side notes on real world pricing, but they don't use it to determine official launch MSRP gen vs gen price adjustments. So prices you find in the real world at retailers (like an $200 3800X/11700K for instance) must be considered when actually purchasing, but we don't use retailer pricing (and definitely not prior years nor years later discounts either vs new MSRP) to determine how much AMD/Intel/NVIDIA actually raised/lowered prices from gen to gen, because other prices are up to the retailers, not AMD/Intel/NVIDIA, unless there is official pricing adjustments to MSRP by said companies.

But for launch pricing determination, we (and the industry/publications) always use the official launch MSRP (as in time of release launch MSRP) vs offical launch MSRP (time of release) that was set by AMD/Intel/NVIDIA to determine actual gen to gen pricing increases/decreases (adjustments). If your personal system for determining price increases/decreases gen to gen makes you happy mate, then that's great, I am happy you're happy, and I will leave you to it, but it is not the industry/publication accepted standard for determining actual gen to gen pricing adjustments. And I am not fighting nor being aggressive with you mate, so please don't take it as such, my primary language is Afrikaans, so I don't have the same finesse when using English

Its quite straightforward, AMD raised the MSRP of the most expensive models in each generation. They added $50 to the already over priced XT variants.

However in reality you were easily able to get an 8 core 3000 series part for less than $300 but the 5000 series 8 core parts came in at $450.

AMD have ramped up pricing and tweaked the naming to dupe the lowest common denominators amongst us to believe that it was only by $50.

If anyone genuinely believes you only pay about $50 more for Ryzen 5000 than you did for Ryzen 3000 then that person needs professional help.

 

[erickmendes]

Here's a price comparison down here where I live Brazil with prices already converted to USD:

5600x: US$330
Cheapest X570 mobo in Brazil: US$250

12600K: US$447
Cheapest Z690 mobo in Brazil: US$384

Total platform cost for 5600x: US$580
Total platform cost for 12600k: US$831 (+30%)

BTW, down here in Brazil a RTX 3060 lhr model is going for US$910... So the platform difference is 1/3 of a decent GPU...

The only aspect of Alder Lake I can think as good is bringing competition back from Intel side, which will surely trigger some reaction from AMD, like price cuts in the short term also new Ryzen cpus... I won't say Intel Alder Lake won't be a good buy in the the mid term... but being an early adopter is not for the budget conscious.

 

[mAdmAnDingo]

Its quite straightforward, AMD raised the MSRP of the most expensive models in each generation. They added $50 to the already over priced XT variants.

However in reality you were easily able to get an 8 core 3000 series part for less than $300 but the 5000 series 8 core parts came in at $450.

AMD have ramped up pricing and tweaked the naming to dupe the lowest common denominators amongst us to believe that it was only by $50.

If anyone genuinely believes you only pay about $50 more for Ryzen 5000 than you did for Ryzen 3000 then that person needs professional help.

I understand prices for 3000 CPUs could be found lower than MSRP at 5000 launch, no one say's otherwise mate. But we compare launch MSRP prices to launch MSRP prices, and SKU to SKU, to determine actual AMD/Intel/NVIDIA price increases/decreases gen to gen, as done by Techspot in this very 12600k review.

We don't take an 11900k that can be found at cheaper prices lower than it's launch MSRP of $540 (let's say the 11900k can be found for $400 for an example), and then compare it to the 12900k's higher asking price of $650 and say that proves that Intel raised prices drastically compared to the 11900k, no, we don't do that, and not an single publication does do it mate. We compare the 11900Ks official launch MSRP of $549 vs 12900ks $650, any other method is incorrect, and not a single publication does use yours or any other method, neither does Techspot, they use the exact method I described, and the method that was used by Techspot for Intel at the start of this 12600k review itself.

Publications can and often do also mention current real world pricing, but that don't use that pricing when determining gen vs gen launch MSRP price adjustments, they only use official launch MSRP prices to make that determination. And we don't take an 11400 launch MSRP and compare it to the 12600k launch MSRP and claim Intel raised prices drastically either, because that be would incorrect SKU vs SKU price increase comparisons. Same goes when comparing AMD SKUs vs SKUs mate.

You can use any method you like mate, it's perfectly fine, but it is incorrect and goes against industry/publication standard. I haven't convinced myself of anything mate, it is the industry/publications that you must convince to change the standard, your method goes against industry standard, you are the odd man out as it were. The fact stands, AMDs 5000 series launch MSRP increase over 3000 series was $50 over 3000 series equivalents launch MSRP pricing, the entire industry agrees with me mate.

If we want to compare official/unofficial after launch retailer pricing to official launch MSRP that's perfectly fine as well, but it is has no bearing on the actual launch MSRP prices of gen vs gen launch MSRP price comparisons used to determine AMD/Intels/NVIDIAs price adjustments from gen to gen, for that determination we use the accepted industry standard.

 

[Strawman]

No, Techspot never gave any Ryzen 95/100.

Cause they weren't winning in both single and multicore performance

 

[Strawman]

I'm waiting for you to get something right here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

He said 95, not 100

 

[Sausagemeat]

I understand prices for 3000 CPUs could be found lower than MSRP at 5000 launch, no one say's otherwise mate. But we compare launch MSRP prices to launch MSRP prices, and SKU to SKU, to determine actual AMD/Intel/NVIDIA price increases/decreases gen to gen, as done by Techspot in this very 12600k review.

We don't take an 11900k that can be found at cheaper prices lower than it's launch MSRP of $540 (let's say the 11900k can be found for $400 for an example), and then compare it to the 12900k's higher asking price of $650 and say that proves that Intel raised prices drastically compared to the 11900k, no, we don't do that, and not an single publication does do it mate. We compare the 11900Ks official launch MSRP of $549 vs 12900ks $650, any other method is incorrect, and not a single publication does use yours or any other method, neither does Techspot, they use the exact method I described, and the method that was used by Techspot for Intel at the start of this 12600k review itself.

Publications can and often do also mention current real world pricing, but that don't use that pricing when determining gen vs gen launch price adjustments, they only use official launch MSRP prices for that. And we don't take an 11400 launch MSRP and compare it to the 12600k launch MSRP and claim Intel raised prices drastically either, because that be would incorrect SKU vs SKU price increase comparisons. Same goes when comparing AMD SKUs vs SKUs mate.

You can use any method you like mate, it's perfectly fine, but it is incorrect and goes against industry/publication standard. I haven't convinced myself of anything mate, it is the industry/publications that you must convince to change the standard, your method goes against industry standard, you are the odd man out as it were. The fact stands, AMDs 5000 series launch MSRP increase over 3000 series was $50 over 3000 series equivalents launch MSRP pricing, the entire industry agrees with me mate. If we want to compare official/unofficial after launch retailer pricing to official launch MSRP that's perfectly fine as well, but it is has no bearing on the actual launch MSRP prices of gen vs gen launch MSRP price comparisons used to determine AMD/Intels/NVIDIAs price adjustments from gen to gen, for that determination we use the accepted industry standard.

You are incorrect. I’m not using sales prices. I’m using the fact that AMD sold model numbers that don’t exist in the 5000 series and these parts in the 3000 series were near indentical to each other. Your methodology requires following AMD naming and marketing to the letter without looking at the facts.

People pay a lot more than just $50 more for Ryzen 5000 CPUs that they did for Ryzen CPUs. If you genuinely believe they don’t you need professional help.

3700X MSRP $299
5800X MSRP $450

AMD Did also sell a 3800XT to a small amount of people for $400, which was near identical in performance to a 3700x. The existence of this part does not validate your argument. Especially as there is no 5700X. These are all unlocked 8 core SKUs with minor tweaks to clock speeds at stock. If you think there is a significant difference between a 3700X or a 3800X then you need to go back and read the reviews again.

You’re blocked by the way. Your arguments are poor and I do not have time to waste on AMD fanboys who apparently think they can get away with the lie that the prices only increased by $50. I mean how stupid do you think I am? Have a nice life and give up the gaslighting, you’re not convincing anyone…

 

[mrvco]

So after a year Intel finally released a competitive alternative to the 5600x? Ok wow. Something tells me we won't be waiting an entire year for AMD to release 6000 series Ryzen CPUs.

 

[mAdmAnDingo]

You are incorrect. I’m not using sales prices. I’m using the fact that AMD sold model numbers that don’t exist in the 5000 series and these parts in the 3000 series were near indentical to each other. Your methodology requires following AMD naming and marketing to the letter without looking at the facts.

People pay a lot more than just $50 more for Ryzen 5000 CPUs that they did for Ryzen CPUs. If you genuinely believe they don’t you need professional help.

3700X MSRP $299
5800X MSRP $450

AMD Did also sell a 3800XT to a small amount of people for $400, which was near identical in performance to a 3700x. The existence of this part does not validate your argument. Especially as there is no 5700X. These are all unlocked 8 core SKUs with minor tweaks to clock speeds at stock. If you think there is a significant difference between a 3700X or a 3800X then you need to go back and read the reviews again.

You’re blocked by the way. Your arguments are poor and I do not have time to waste on AMD fanboys who apparently think they can get away with the lie that the prices only increased by $50. I mean how stupid do you think I am? Have a nice life and give up the gaslighting, you’re not convincing anyone…

No mate, the only person fooling anyone is you fooling yourself. You can compare the 3700X to 5800X as much as you like, but you are ignoring the 3800X that exists that it actually replaced, so it is incorrect SKU comparisons that you are using, that is like comparing incorrect Intel SKU CPUs to each other, so it is you who has to use incorrect SKU comparisons to make your argument work.

The fact that the 3700X was cheaper, more popular, performed almost the same as the 3800X, and was a higher volume seller than the 3800X, has no bearing on 5800X launch MSRP prices, it is not the SKU that the 5800X replaced, the 3800X is. AMD likely decided to have just the premium variants, so rather they focused on supplying just the premium 5800X instead, likely to maximize earnings potential (to recover costs, R&D, any debts etc). The possible performance differences between an 5800X and theoretical 5700X (whether large or small), doesn't invalidate AMD's decision to focus on the 5800X for the DIY market (the 5800 65W TDP exists, but is OEM only), and we don't compare the 5800X to the 3700X it was not positinoed to replace to determine launch MSRP vs launch MSRP pricing adjustments.

But it was likely a business decision by AMD to go with the more premium higher earning 5800X/5600X over the more budget oriented 5600/5700X variants (even more so considering their performance advantage depending on benchmark used vs Intel at the time), but it was a valid business decision and is accepted by industry standards when comparing launch MSRP SKU to SKU. I follow it to the letter, SKU to SKU, launch MSRP to launch MSRP, as does the industry and publications mate, for AMD/intel/NVIDIA, we treat everyone the same according to accepted industry/publications standards, unlike yourself with your comparisons.

As consumers, having 5600/5700X variants would of course had been welcome mate, but those are not the SKU's that AMD released, so instead we must use the actual SKUs that AMD released (5600X/5800X), and compare them to the SKUs they were positioned to replace (3600X/3800X). I am being fair and equal with both companies, as does the industry/publications when making the same comparisons, and as shown by me not using incorrect Intel comparisons, but instead insisting on correct Intel comparisons as well, same as the industry, same for AMD/NVIDA.

And cheers mate, I take you blocked me because you cant stand a reasonable discussion, as shown by your having to insult me, so I want no further discourse with yourself either, I consider your insults and behavior as you accepting you are incorrect, because none of your arguments stand up to scrutiny, accuracy, or accepted industry/publication wide standards, so you had to result to insults and ending the discussion with them instead.

 

[Pastuch]

Another useless bunch of games tested. If it's not a Battleroyale why bother at all?

 

[Strawman]

No mate, the only person fooling anyone is you fooling yourself. You can compare the 3700X to 5800X as much as you like, but you are ignoring the 3800X that exists that it actually replaced, so it is incorrect SKU comparisons that you are using, that is like comparing incorrect Intel SKU CPUs to each other, so it is you who has to use incorrect SKU comparisons to make your argument work.

That's just bs. The 3800x was more expensive than the 3700x because it was the better binned 8 core variant. That is not the case with the 5800x. There was a 50% price increase in both the 6 core and the 8 core skus (3600 to 5600x and 3700x to 5800x). Going by your logic, if AMD's next gen 8 core cpu is called 6850x and cost 999$ there is no price increase cause there was no 5850x to compare to, right?

 

[Strawman]

So after a year Intel finally released a competitive alternative to the 5600x? Ok wow. Something tells me we won't be waiting an entire year for AMD to release 6000 series Ryzen CPUs.

Yeah, it only beats it by 60% in cbr23. Really competitive

 

[HardReset]

I'm waiting for you to get something right here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

Does not look like 95/100 for me...

AMD struggled to deliver 5900X and especially 5950X for months and months post release. They pretty much only had a few samples ready for reviews. Prices were above MSRP too.

AMD mostly shipped and sold 5600X and 5800X, this is common knowledge. Tons of threads all over the web confirming this.

I waited 3-4 months to get my 5900X after actual release, a friend of mine waited 5-6 months for his 5950X, he almost cancelled his order. So no, AMD did not have a good amount ready at launch

There was good availability at launch. After that, things were different. Same applies to RTX 3080. Good availability at launch, after that ...

 

[Steve]

Does not look like 95/100 for me...

There was good availability at launch. After that, things were different. Same applies to RTX 3080. Good availability at launch, after that ...

I know what you meant. But I also know you love to look silly so I'll just drop this here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1977-amd-ryzen-1600-af/

Also, why not be wrong twice? https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/

Or three times? https://www.techspot.com/review/2096-amd-ryzen-4800u/

Bored yet? I know I am https://www.techspot.com/review/2027-amd-ryzen-4600h/

Four Cores for Ultrabooks: Core i7-8550U Review

For generations we've put up with sub-10% YOY performance improvements on ultraportables, but with the threat of AMD's competition in the near future, Intel's low-power mobile chips...

www.techspot.com

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X & 1500X Review

As we begin to recover from the roller coaster ride that was Ryzen 7, we now have Ryzen 5 to address. AMD has announced four models in...

www.techspot.com

 

[HardReset]

I know what you meant. But I also know you love to look silly so I'll just drop this here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1977-amd-ryzen-1600-af/

Also, why not be wrong twice? https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/

Or three times? https://www.techspot.com/review/2096-amd-ryzen-4800u/

Bored yet? I know I am https://www.techspot.com/review/2027-amd-ryzen-4600h/

Four Cores for Ultrabooks: Core i7-8550U Review

For generations we've put up with sub-10% YOY performance improvements on ultraportables, but with the threat of AMD's competition in the near future, Intel's low-power mobile chips...

www.techspot.com

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X & 1500X Review

As we begin to recover from the roller coaster ride that was Ryzen 7, we now have Ryzen 5 to address. AMD has announced four models in...

www.techspot.com

Thanks. I thought I checked every score on Ryzen reviews list and did not find 95/100. Perhaps I just browsed wrong...

 

[Steve]

Thanks. I thought I checked every score on Ryzen reviews list and did not find 95/100. Perhaps I just browsed wrong...

Apparently, you had the same issue more than once when trying to find pricing. I suggest sharpening up those research skills, maybe focusing on those and less on commenting for a bit. For pricing, a website like PC Part Picker could really help you.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/BB4Ycf/intel-core-i5-12600k-37-ghz-6-core-processor-bx8071512600k

 

[HardReset]

Apparently, you had the same issue more than once when trying to find pricing. I suggest sharpening up those research skills, maybe focusing on those and less on commenting for a bit. For pricing, a website like PC Part Picker could really help you.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/BB4Ycf/intel-core-i5-12600k-37-ghz-6-core-processor-bx8071512600k

Like I said:

Not to mention shopping shortcuts for i5-12600K don't offer any results.

I mean this one from article.

[HEADING=3]Shopping Shortcuts: Intel Core i5-12600K on Amazon[/HEADING]

Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.

Same link on CPU comparison table.

And I wrote those pricing comments two days ago, not surprising things have already changed. However 12600K was unavailable on Tuesday too, according link(s) provided on article. Using links provided on article, retail pricing is still unknown.

However, after a long time, someone proved me wrong with those Ryzen review scores. Even with sources. And that definitely deserves

 

[Steve]

Like I said:

I mean this one from article.


Same link on CPU comparison table.

And I wrote those pricing comments two days ago, not surprising things have already changed. However 12600K was unavailable on Tuesday too, according link(s) provided on article. Using links provided on article, retail pricing is still unknown.

However, after a long time, someone proved me wrong with those Ryzen review scores. Even with sources. And that definitely deserves

I replied two days ago, nothing has changed since then. You can see my first reply here https://www.techspot.com/community/...0k-review-5600x-defeated.272108/#post-1927202

 

[HardReset]

I replied two days ago, nothing has changed since then. You can see my first reply here https://www.techspot.com/community/...0k-review-5600x-defeated.272108/#post-1927202

I didn't even notice that one. Because:

 

[Steve]

I didn't even notice that one. Because:

View attachment 88038

Yeah, the reply function didn't work. But that's irrelevant really, I didn't need to comment in order for you to be wrong.

 

[paul1122]

At least it's right in the title. Check in the mail TS. Should take about oh, let's say a YEAR to get it in your hands. ONE year, lol.

 

[HardReset]

Yeah, the reply function didn't work. But that's irrelevant really, I didn't need to comment in order for you to be wrong.

Like I said, according sources provided on article, retail pricing was unknown. And it still is.

12900K and 12700K pricing according to links on article are (and was) OK. But 12600K is (and was) not.

 

[Yenega]

Does not look like 95/100 for me...

There was good availability at launch. After that, things were different. Same applies to RTX 3080. Good availability at launch, after that ...

There's plenty of Alder Lake chips available. Tons of i5-12600K and i7-12700K + KF models, which are the ones that 99% of buyers are interested in.

I recieved my 3080 5 days after launch and paid MSRP. Now "exchanged" to a 3080 Ti which I got 2 weeks post launch. Free upgrade, since I sold the 3080 for more than 3080 Ti cost me.

I got my 3070 the day after launch. Ready for pickup in less than 24 hours.


Radeon 6000 availablity was and is worse than Ampere and this is true even tho 9 out of 10 gamers will pick Nvidia over AMD and miners will too; Ampere sold way better than RDNA2.

Nvidia going with Samsung was the best business move I have seen in a long time. Nvidia predicted TSMC would be overbooked and this is also why AMD can't deliver GPU's. Meanwhile Nvidia is eating away marketshare.

And then Nvidia goes back to TSMC with 4000 series, 5nm before AMD, while still spitting out Ampere to fill the demand.

Soon Intel will join the low to mid-end GPU market; AMDs prime segment.

I would not be surprised if AMD dGPU marketshare is less than 10% in 1-2 years.

 

[mrSister]

Call me crazy, but I just can't see how the 5600x is "beaten". Maybe on those synthetics (with more cores and higher power consumption) but on gaming the i5 is only a 3% faster on average loosing to the R5 on serveral games.

To me is a tie and the deciding factor would be the price (not only the cpu but also factoring in platform costs) and maybe the fact that the i5 should have a longer life because of two extra cores.

Title feels like clickbait lol.