Intel Core i5-12600K Review: 5600X Defeated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,202   +1,060
Again, Intel did a great job but remember that it was AMD who's pushing them to do it, so the competition is great for us, as customers. I chose AMD for their balls, and they did not make me regret it.
They push each other. If Intel didn’t dominate AMD for all those years would we have got Ryzen? Now we have the opposite, AMD resting on their laurels with Ryzen and ramping up prices, Intels Alder lake will push them to lower prices and release faster products.

The problems occur when one manufacturer stalls leaving the other to stop delivering more.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,533   +2,242
AMD resting on their laurels with Ryzen and ramping up prices
This is business 101.

When you have a superior product to the competition you price it accordingly. They are a publicly traded company and have to answer to share holders. And due to Intel's size and revenue they can afford to undercut AMD on price. AMD cannot willing leave money on the table when the situation is reversed.

In the end we all win and competition is good for the market. And 2022 looks like it will bring a heated battle. But I still don't see DDR5 being ready for another two years. DDR5 4800 modules are slow and the faster ones much too expensive.
 
Last edited:

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,202   +1,060
This is business 101.

When you have a superior product to the competition you price it accordingly. They are a publicly traded company and have to answer to share holders. And due to Intel's size and revenue they can afford to undercut AMD on price. AMD cannot willing leave table on the money when the situation is reversed.

In the end we all win and competition is good for the market. And 2022 looks like it will bring a heated battle. But I still don't see DDR5 being ready for another two years. DDR54800 modules are slow and the faster one much too expensive.
I completely agree, these companies are not charities, they are out here to take as much money off us as they can.

But that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to be unhappy that they raise prices. Criticism of Ryzen 5000s pricing is fair, especially as it was such a massive increase over the previous gen. People were getting 3700X for $250 and the 3600 for $150 throughout most of 2020 and then in November AMD launched the 5000 series at significantly higher price points.

To me, if you’re one of those people who buys AMD everytime regardless (a fanboy) then you should be bloody happy that Intel have applied some pressure as they should reduce pricing. Although I wonder if they will, I don’t think AMD or their shareholders want to give up the premium space.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,013   +4,830
My 7 year old i7 4790k overclocked to 4.7ghz paired with Corsair dominator platinum 2133 CL9 (about as good as reasonable DDR3 gets) struggles to lock 60 fps on quite a few games at this point. Cyberpunk 2077, red dead redemption 2, Far Cry 5 & 6, Assassins creed Valhalla. A 3570K was a great CPU, it would hold up a lot worse than my 4790K.

And I like the optimism but I can’t see a 2020 6 core lasting until 2030. AMD released competitive 6 cores in 2010. They didn’t last until 2020! I’ve never seen a CPU remain relevant for 10 years.

Bur don’t get me wrong, any Ryzen 3000/5000 or Intel 10,11,12 gen will give you a great gaming experience for a good few years yet.
Techspot tested the entire 10th gen lineup, the i3-10100 was able to keep 60 FPS for 1% lows across all games tested. The 3570k and your 4790k OCed perform better then that 10100. Dont get me wrong, the days of quad cores are coming to an end, but they're not dead quite yet:

https://www.techspot.com/review/2061-intel-core-versus/

AMD's 6 core phenom from 2010 is not a good comparison. The phenom II x6, when it came out, was losing to dual core i3s in gaming tests at the time, and in multithreaded workloads could not catch the quad core i5s at stock. the phenom II was honestly a core 2 duo competitor and was doomed from the start in terms of performance, it couldnt keep up with nahalem, let alone sandy or ivy bridge.

Intel's 980x 6 core, OTOH, from 2009 can be OCed and still provide 60+ FPS 1% minimums, and may very well outlive the quad core sandy/ivy bridge i5s.

The first gen ryzen 6 cores may struggle due to their lackluster memory controller, but the 2000 series did a LOT better and will surely hit the 10 year replacement threshhold. The 2020 six core, the 5600x, will ABSOLUTELY live to 2030, hand down.
 
Last edited:

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,202   +1,060
Techspot tested the entire 10th gen lineup, the i3-10100 was able to keep 60 FPS for 1% lows across all games tested. The 3570k and your 4790k OCed perform better then that 10100. Dont get me wrong, the days of quad cores are coming to an end, but they're not dead quite yet:

https://www.techspot.com/review/2061-intel-core-versus/

AMD's 6 core phenom from 2010 is not a good comparison. The phenom II x6, when it came out, was losing to dual core i3s in gaming tests at the time, and in multithreaded workloads could not catch the quad core i5s at stock. the phenom II was honestly a core 2 duo competitor and was doomed from the start in terms of performance, it couldnt keep up with nahalem, let alone sandy or ivy bridge.

Intel's 980x 6 core, OTOH, from 2009 can be OCed and still provide 60+ FPS 1% minimums, and may very well outlive the quad core sandy/ivy bridge i5s.

The first gen ryzen 6 cores may struggle due to their lackluster memory controller, but the 2000 series did a LOT better and will surely hit the 10 year replacement threshhold. The 2020 six core, the 5600x, will ABSOLUTELY live to 2030, hand down.
You are incorrect. A 10100 performs on par with a 7700K and therefore faster than a 4790K. It also has DDR4 and not DDR3. And trust me I can assure you games dip below 60 on a 4790K, if you think they don’t you’re deluded.

Also the 6 core first gen i7s can beat out a Sandy bridge quad in some games but not all. In general the Sandy bridge parts are faster despite having less cores.

You’re also wrong about the phenom, the 1100T was even faster than the FX parts that came out later.

It seems you have a lot of misconceptions. Feel free to DM me, I’ve been doing this a very long time and I’m more than happy to take some of my time to talk this through with you and give you a better understanding.
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,533   +2,242
But that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to be unhappy that they raise prices. Criticism of Ryzen 5000s pricing is fair, especially as it was such a massive increase over the previous gen. People were getting 3700X for $250 and the 3600 for $150 throughout most of 2020 and then in November AMD launched the 5000 series at significantly higher price points.
I disagree with this part because pricing was only up $50 bucks. Had this discussion here before.

There is no Zen 3 equivalent of the 3700x just as there is no Zen 3 version of a 3600. And this is the example everyone is using to say AMD raised prices. You have to compare MSRP to MSRP not sales prices a year after. The 3700x was never $250 at MRSP

So the X models that were released its only $50 increase in price.

Zen 2 MSRP

  • 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 7 3700X: $329 (about £260, AU$480) - No Zen 3 model
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600X: $249 (about £200, AU$360)
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600: $199 (about £160, AU$290) - No Zen 3 model
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)
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,202   +1,060
I disagree with this part because pricing was only up $50 bucks. Had this discussion here before.

There is no Zen 3 equivalent of the 3700x just as there is no Zen 3 version of a 3600. And this is the example everyone is using to say AMD raised prices. You have to compare MSRP to MSRP not sales prices a year after. The 3700x was never $250 at MRSP

So the X models that were released its only $50 increase in price.

Zen 2 MSRP

  • 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 7 3700X: $329 (about £260, AU$480) - No Zen 3 model
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600X: $249 (about £200, AU$360)
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600: $199 (about £160, AU$290) - No Zen 3 model
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)
Lmao only $50. Sure from the MSRP of a 3800XT to a 5800X maybe.

But in actual real world pricing here on planet earth the price increase was enormous! Ryzen 3000 8 core parts cost less on average than Ryzen 5000 series 6 core parts do!

But I get it, you are a big AMD fan and you want to cover up their price gouging.

My mate bought a 6 core Ryzen 3600 for £150. The 5600X cost £300. Sure the 3600XT probably had an MSRP of £250 but it’s what 2% faster than the base 3600? Come on dude, don’t be asinine and actually try and claim the price only went up by $50, you know it’s more really.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,533   +2,242
Lmao only $50. Sure from the MSRP of a 3800XT to a 5800X maybe.

But in actual real world pricing here on planet earth the price increase was enormous! Ryzen 3000 8 core parts cost less on average than Ryzen 5000 series 6 core parts do!

But I get it, you are a big AMD fan and you want to cover up their price gouging.

My mate bought a 6 core Ryzen 3600 for £150. The 5600X cost £300. Sure the 3600XT probably had an MSRP of £250 but it’s what 2% faster than the base 3600? Come on dude, don’t be asinine and actually try and claim the price only went up by $50, you know it’s more really.

You are comparing XT to X then X to none X models :)

When the comparison is X to X.

Has nothing to do with being a fan of AMD I've owned just as many intel systems in the last 20 years of building. And I consider myself fairly neutral. As soon as you start moving away from MSRP then talking about sales and discounted pricing it changes the whole argument.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 84   +143
12600k is destroying 5600x and even beating 5800x in most of productivity benchmark.... It does not consume more power than 5800x


Most of 12600k performance come from P cores and not E cores (12600k faster at single core than zen3).. Even if you turn off 4 E cores, 12600k would still beat 5600x but not as much

Not ... https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2354/bench/Average.png

2 frame advantage high framerate
4 frame advantage low framerate

Intel 6P + 4E core +6 hyperthreads.. to match a year old 6P+6 hyperthreaded cpu
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,202   +1,060
You are comparing XT to X then X to none X models :)

When the comparison is X to X.

Has nothing to do with being a fan of AMD I've owned just as many intel systems in the last 20 years of building. And I consider myself fairly neutral. As soon as you start moving away from MSRP then talking about sales and discounted pricing it changes the whole argument.
I understand the technicality you’re using to get only $50. But you know as well as I do that the X or XT moniker means very little.

The 5800X was $450 MSRP. Most people before that were buying the 8 core 3700 for $300. Same with the 6 core variant, the 5600X was $300 but most were buying the 3600 for nearly half that.

You know full well the $50 increase claim is bullshit. Either that or youre genuinely stupid enough to think that giving a CPU an “X” on the end of its name means anything.

If you ignore the branding and just look at the performance and core count, AMD massively increased what they charge with the 5000 series. And fair enough, they aren’t a charity, they can charge what they like annoyingly.
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,533   +2,242
You know full well the $50 increase claim is bullshit. Either that or youre genuinely stupid enough to think that giving a CPU an “X” on the end of its name means anything.

There is no point continuing this discussion if you cannot do it without personal insults. Just like there is no point talking about retail pricing because that is outside of AMD's control. What you pay at newegg, Amazon, local retailer is not set by AMD.
 

MarcusNumb

Posts: 17   +23
I think you mean lowering prices for Zen 3. There is no Zen 3+ v-cache out on the market and no performance data so abit to soon to be talking about pricing on an unreleased part.
You are correct that there are none now, but I was referring to those who will come at Q1 2022. If AMD wants to stay competitive with Alder Lake, I don't think they will keep raising up their prices. If they still do it, well then too bad for them.
The real interesting battle will be between Zen4 and Meteor Lake, but anyway, honestly I don't think in the next 5 years there will be any AAA games can drain out the current AMD Zen 3 and Intel Alder Lake CPUs.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,013   +4,830
You are incorrect. A 10100 performs on par with a 7700K and therefore faster than a 4790K. It also has DDR4 and not DDR3. And trust me I can assure you games dip below 60 on a 4790K, if you think they don’t you’re deluded.
I have provided proof against your claim. A 4790k or 3570k can be OCed above the performance of a stock 7700k/10100, and I've demonstrated those chips can perform over 60 FPS 1% lows. While the i3 may be running DDR4, it is limited to 2666 mhz DDR4, a high quality DDR3 2133 kit is going to perform roughly on par with slow DDR4 RAM like that based on latency alone. As DDR5 has shown bandwidth is not everything.

I still have a 3570k in my pocession, and it still performs admirably. You are free to prove otherwise.
Also the 6 core first gen i7s can beat out a Sandy bridge quad in some games but not all. In general the Sandy bridge parts are faster despite having less cores.
Yes, again, before OC. The six cores were clocked noticeably lower but can be pushed to 4 GHz per core with good cooling.
You’re also wrong about the phenom, the 1100T was even faster than the FX parts that came out later.
OK, and how does that prove me wrong? I said the phenom II was getting beaten by the core i3 and i5. Yes, it was faster then the FX, guess what? That TOO was slower then core i3s in most games! The FX chips were absolute garbage, and even a pentium G6400 provides better performance in current games then the 8150 can manage today, despite only being a dual core with no AVX support.


Quit pulling red herrings and whataboutisms as some sort of gatcha.
It seems you have a lot of misconceptions. Feel free to DM me, I’ve been doing this a very long time and I’m more than happy to take some of my time to talk this through with you and give you a better understanding.
Feel free to discuss it right here, where others are free to criticize. If you cant provide evidence to your claims then kindly stop making a fool out of yourself.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,795   +2,854
Staff member
Hey Steve,

I'm using your 10 game average fps and I get different average?

12600 5600x
F1 373 392
TC R6SS 511 560
BL3 192 194
WD: L 130 126
MGotG 110 110
SoftTR 166 159
HM3 192 185
AoEIV 147 124
HZD 173 181
CP2077 131 130

Average 212. 216.1

So using your mean overall fps for the ten games I the 5600X at 216.1 fps vs 212.5 for the Intel 12600K.

How did you get the 12600 being faster than the 5600K, maybe possible miscalculation?
We calculate the geomean.
 

nnguy2

Posts: 353   +729
We calculate the geomean.

Ok got. Make sense now. Math checks out :)

More of an academic issue, but the differences in fps between the games are not logarithmic or differ by several orders of magnitude but nonparametric in nature. For statistical rigors in mind, maybe the median should be reported and use a nonparametric test (Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney) to test if the differences are statistically significant. This is probably be overkill as I don't expect statistical differences but food for thought!
 

Mjswooosh

Posts: 65   +84
Competition is good. That said, it is expected that a new CPU will out-perform a CPU released from one year ago. Given that fact, it’s rather remarkable these two CPUs perform basically identically in gaming. The productivity advantage in some software is perhaps for some users a good reason to go intel at this price point. But someone who only games would be served equally well either way.

Overall cost of build would determine my personal direction for a gaming rig. AMD could drop the price to $229 and be fine until their next gen parts, although it’d be better for gamers if they go all the way down to $199 (a logical price point if the 5800X is officially dropping to $299 and not just at Microcenters).
 

erickmendes

Posts: 635   +285
... "Defeated?" ... Seems like parents when they baby barfs ... "So cute, he's a champion!" ...

Talking only about Gaming, anyone who have a 5600x and a B450 AM4 board will have the SAME performance against anyone with a Z690 mobo and a 12600k... If you take into account for the overpriced Z690 motherboard and the 12600k cpu, surely you will be spending on a inter-generation platform that soon will be surpassed by a DDR5 variant, OR you spend EVEN MORE to get a DDR5 Z690 that will be first generation of DDR5 mobos... Good luck on this one...

Most major computer enthusiast media outlets only praised AMD after it put Intel on shame with Zen... Now they are all congratulating Intel for getting it's game up to speed? ... Really?

And WE are the AMD fanboys?... Come on... Even for productivity AMD still wins on the cost effective front... And anyway, if I had to build any sort of PC right now I would wait for AMD response, because AMD will cut prices on 5000 Ryzen and probaly will answer to Alder Lake with something else and the prices will get normalized after that.

Anyone who has being in the enthusiast PC market for some time now will know that it's not theright time to bet on any of them (AMD/Intel)...
 

Danny101

Posts: 2,005   +831
I go with AMD, and always will. But it's good to see competition heating up. Good job Intel.
 
Not sure what they mean by letting us know AMD uses 70w less power in load/peak of 1 benchmark. That's also unknown how many cores Intel using in those benchmarks, so, your generalization is only what AMD fans like.. In real World, the price is in same class & performance is ahead in both single & multi threaded. My answer to those..

Thanks!
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 92   +81
Lmao only $50. Sure from the MSRP of a 3800XT to a 5800X maybe.

But in actual real world pricing here on planet earth the price increase was enormous! Ryzen 3000 8 core parts cost less on average than Ryzen 5000 series 6 core parts do!

But I get it, you are a big AMD fan and you want to cover up their price gouging.

My mate bought a 6 core Ryzen 3600 for £150. The 5600X cost £300. Sure the 3600XT probably had an MSRP of £250 but it’s what 2% faster than the base 3600? Come on dude, don’t be asinine and actually try and claim the price only went up by $50, you know it’s more really.
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.




5000 series launch MSRP.

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 :)
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 437   +238
Well, Intel needs 10 cores to beat AMD 6 cores with much higher power consumption, not impressive.

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

Giving 95/100 for "being competitive priced" without even knowing exact real world pricing 🤦‍♂️
Isn't that what AMD was doing for the first 3 generations of zen? LOL
 
This article is in my opinion a bit too shortsighted in terms of power efficiency and cost.
Overall the 5600X is a much more cost efficient solution than the 12600K.
With a TDP of 65W compared to a whopping 125W for the 12600K, each hour of gaming with 5600X instead of the 12600K saves around 0.07€ (Assuming the 2020 average rate of Germany of 0.30€ per kWh)
Even with just 4h of gaming per day for 200d/y the 5600X saves 56€ in energy cost per year.
Overall the 5600X has much lower overall life cycle cost, and is for me thus the clear winner with so little difference in performance.

Of course the saving effect is smaller for countries where energy prices are still lower, but energy efficiency is on the agenda of all governments and energy prices will in the future have only one direction.
 

Wrinkle

Posts: 95   +72
This article is in my opinion a bit too shortsighted in terms of power efficiency and cost.
Overall the 5600X is a much more cost efficient solution than the 12600K.
With a TDP of 65W compared to a whopping 125W for the 12600K, each hour of gaming with 5600X instead of the 12600K saves around 0.07€ (Assuming the 2020 average rate of Germany of 0.30€ per kWh)
Even with just 4h of gaming per day for 200d/y the 5600X saves 56€ in energy cost per year.
Overall the 5600X has much lower overall life cycle cost, and is for me thus the clear winner with so little difference in performance.

Of course the saving effect is smaller for countries where energy prices are still lower, but energy efficiency is on the agenda of all governments and energy prices will in the future have only one direction.

I think you're right but with two caveats: 4 hours a day for 200 days is quite a lot and won't apply to everyone. Also, depending on the game, the cpu probably isn't utilised fully making the numbers even more fuzzy. In the end the difference might be quite small.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.