Intel Core i5-12600K Review: 5600X Defeated

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
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.
As you probably know, TSMC 5nm is already fully booked. So Nvidia was wise to go for Samsung to avoid fully booked TSMC node and then Nvidia is wise when they go for fully booked TSMC node.

Bwahaha!
 

Steve

Posts: 2,795   +2,854
Staff member
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.
What synthetics? The 12600K obliterates the 5600X in many real-world workloads, I have no idea what article you read.
 

grvalderrama

Posts: 294   +134
Intel core i5 beats amd r5... In power consumption lol. Great to see Intel back on their feet, thanks amd for pushing Intel. Now let's enjoy competition
 

Tantor

Posts: 228   +441
Interesting article. I don't want to sound too critical, but I would say it's a classic Straw Man Argument. You match your strongest against the opponent's weakest, and call it a victory.

Steve has always said that gaming rules. Let's look at gaming. He touts the i5-12600k but lets the cat out of the bag in the 10 game comparison. We see the 5600x scores are almost identical to the i5-12600k. Think about it... AMD's little 5600x with 60% fewer cores (10 vs 6) and 25% lower single threading performance, easily keeps up with Intel's latest 10 core processor. Is Intel pathetic or what?

Same for the 5800x. With 25% less cores (8 vs 10) it beats the i5-12600k in gaming, and keeps up or beats it in most everything else. Not too shabby.

Intel fans may be in for a rude awakening when AMDs 3d cache rolls out. AMD claims it boosts performance by 15%. If that translates to gaming performance, the enhanced 5600x may crush the entire Alder Lake lineup.

But you say that Intel is a better value? That's true for the CPUs, but not the mobos. Also, the AMD 3d CPUS will be a simple drop-in to existing AM4 sockets. I would say AMD still wins the value argument. Especially if AMD drops their prices a little.

I think that Intel is selling these chips below cost. They have enormous financial muscle. After being whupped by little AMD for the last 4 years, they're pulling out all the stops. We live in interesting times.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,795   +2,854
Staff member
Interesting article. I don't want to sound too critical, but I would say it's a classic Straw Man Argument. You match your strongest against the opponent's weakest, and call it a victory.

Steve has always said that gaming rules. Let's look at gaming. He touts the i5-12600k but lets the cat out of the bag in the 10 game comparison. We see the 5600x scores are almost identical to the i5-12600k. Think about it... AMD's little 5600x with 60% fewer cores (10 vs 6) and 25% lower single threading performance, easily keeps up with Intel's latest 10 core processor. Is Intel pathetic or what?

Same for the 5800x. With 25% less cores (8 vs 10) it beats the i5-12600k in gaming, and keeps up or beats it in most everything else. Not too shabby.

Intel fans may be in for a rude awakening when AMDs 3d cache rolls out. AMD claims it boosts performance by 15%. If that translates to gaming performance, the enhanced 5600x may crush the entire Alder Lake lineup.

But you say that Intel is a better value? That's true for the CPUs, but not the mobos. Also, the AMD 3d CPUS will be a simple drop-in to existing AM4 sockets. I would say AMD still wins the value argument. Especially if AMD drops their prices a little.

I think that Intel is selling these chips below cost. They have enormous financial muscle. After being whupped by little AMD for the last 4 years, they're pulling out all the stops. We live in interesting times.
This is a very poor analysis. Comparing CPUs by core count is like comparing MHz, it's pretty boneheaded, to be honest. Compare parts based on price and performance, that's really all that should matter to the end-user. If not for that that you could just do a spec sheet review.

"Intel fans may be in for a rude awakening when AMDs 3d cache rolls out. AMD claims it boosts performance by 15%. If that translates to gaming performance, the enhanced 5600x may crush the entire Alder Lake lineup."

It's a big maybe right now, and news flash, there is always better tech on the horizon.

"But you say that Intel is a better value? That's true for the CPUs, but not the mobos. Also, the AMD 3d CPUS will be a simple drop-in to existing AM4 sockets. I would say AMD still wins the value argument. Especially if AMD drops their prices a little."

Again more guesswork, we're going to stick to facts for reviews. You can build a cheaper PC with the 5600X, but overall it's not much cheaper and if you can take advantage of the 30-40% extra performance the 12600K delivers in a lot of core heavy workloads, then the saving simply isn't worth it. Finally, yes the point is AMD needs to drop prices.

"I think that Intel is selling these chips below cost. They have enormous financial muscle. After being whupped by little AMD for the last 4 years, they're pulling out all the stops. We live in interesting times."

Yeah no... they're not.
 

flee2020

Posts: 22   +24
When AMD released the Ryzen 5 3600, it offered so much more performance than Intel's feeble offerings. I was excited and recommended this to all and sundry. The Ryzen 5 5600X again gave the same feeling but it was somewhat dampened by the much higher price and poor availability. I did not recommend the 5600X because of that.

Now we see Intel making some sort of comeback but again, cost of the platform may dampen enthusiasm for the K series. I will wait till we see the non-K and B660 motherboards make their appearance before deciding if Alder Lake is any good. Windows 11 also needs a few more updates to fine tune itself for Alder Lake.

As with all things, the past few years have been marred by the crypto miners' quest to make money. I hope that they don't come and spoil it for us again with Alder Lake computers.
 

flee2020

Posts: 22   +24
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 🤦‍♂️
Some leaked benchmarks for the soon to be released i5-12400 (6 cores 12 threads) show that the 5600X is also beaten by this chip. As the i5-12400 is probably going to cost closer to USD 200, it will be an even bigger blow to AMD. I think AMD needs to up its game soon if it is to remain competitive with Intel. Now Intel must ensure that their Alder Lake chips are in good supply.
 

Strawman

Posts: 437   +238
Interesting article. I don't want to sound too critical, but I would say it's a classic Straw Man Argument. You match your strongest against the opponent's weakest, and call it a victory.

Steve has always said that gaming rules. Let's look at gaming. He touts the i5-12600k but lets the cat out of the bag in the 10 game comparison. We see the 5600x scores are almost identical to the i5-12600k. Think about it... AMD's little 5600x with 60% fewer cores (10 vs 6) and 25% lower single threading performance, easily keeps up with Intel's latest 10 core processor. Is Intel pathetic or what?

Same for the 5800x. With 25% less cores (8 vs 10) it beats the i5-12600k in gaming, and keeps up or beats it in most everything else. Not too shabby.

Intel fans may be in for a rude awakening when AMDs 3d cache rolls out. AMD claims it boosts performance by 15%. If that translates to gaming performance, the enhanced 5600x may crush the entire Alder Lake lineup.

But you say that Intel is a better value? That's true for the CPUs, but not the mobos. Also, the AMD 3d CPUS will be a simple drop-in to existing AM4 sockets. I would say AMD still wins the value argument. Especially if AMD drops their prices a little.

I think that Intel is selling these chips below cost. They have enormous financial muscle. After being whupped by little AMD for the last 4 years, they're pulling out all the stops. We live in interesting times.
Yeah, pick the comparison that fits your agenda. Will totally not make you look biased.
I guess back in the day you were comparing the R5 1400 with the i7 7700k, right?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
Some leaked benchmarks for the soon to be released i5-12400 (6 cores 12 threads) show that the 5600X is also beaten by this chip. As the i5-12400 is probably going to cost closer to USD 200, it will be an even bigger blow to AMD. I think AMD needs to up its game soon if it is to remain competitive with Intel. Now Intel must ensure that their Alder Lake chips are in good supply.
3D-cache has been on production for a while already. Intel now has something for a short while but AMD will soon leave Intel behind again.

Not to mention 5600X is just downgraded server chip...
 

flee2020

Posts: 22   +24
3D-cache has been on production for a while already. Intel now has something for a short while but AMD will soon leave Intel behind again.

Not to mention 5600X is just downgraded server chip...
I have seldom been an early adopter. Looking at how Alder Lake is changing the game for OS and software, it will take some time for the hardware and software to settle down. By then Zen 4 should also be out and crypto miners will be paying 10 times for large cache CPUs. I will wait and see. Meanwhile, I will try to see if there are any bargains to be had on the outgoing CPUs.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 427   +401
@Steven Walton this is not fair comparison, in regard of price/performance sure Intel did great job no question what so ever, but comparing 6/8 core vs 10 core is not fair. i512600K name is misleading. once again Intel did great job but still little behind AMD parts from core count perspective
edit:
I never said its unfair for Intel to have more cores, I just meant that core vs core count or limited clock speed will be more straightforward to see the difference between the two architecture which @Steven Walton himself do such benchmark usually. and will repeat for third time that Intel did great job.
We should not be comparing core count. Instead we should be looking at the segment. The Intel i5 is clearly meant to compete with the Ryzen 5, and there is no doubt about it. If your argument is that we are comparing more cores, then it is the same when Ryzen first started, Ryzen 5 started with 6 cores vs 4 cores across the entire Intel lineup at that point in time. I think we should give credit where credit is due, and Intel clearly made a good leap in terms of performance. Sure the power consumption still looks bad as compared to AMD, but if you want the fastest mid range chip, then Alder Lake is your go to processor.
Having said that, I feel Alder Lake is not selling well despite the rave reviews. The chips are fine, but there are teething hurdles,
1. Lack of DDR5 memory, and even if they are available, they cost a lot. I suspect scalpers are also flipping DDR5. While we have the option to use DDR4, but I feel it is not allowing the new platform to perform to its full potential. Also if you opt for a DDR4 board, you can't switch to DDR5 over time without having to change the entire mobo
2. Lack of cooler options, and/or, existing cooler incompatible or not providing optimal cooling due to issue with mounting pressure
3. Need to use buggy Windows 11 for best experience
For most, I feel point 3 is tolerable, but the first 2 points are the show stopper for Alder Lake demand.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,795   +2,854
Staff member
We should not be comparing core count. Instead we should be looking at the segment. The Intel i5 is clearly meant to compete with the Ryzen 5, and there is no doubt about it. If your argument is that we are comparing more cores, then it is the same when Ryzen first started, Ryzen 5 started with 6 cores vs 4 cores across the entire Intel lineup at that point in time. I think we should give credit where credit is due, and Intel clearly made a good leap in terms of performance. Sure the power consumption still looks bad as compared to AMD, but if you want the fastest mid range chip, then Alder Lake is your go to processor.
Having said that, I feel Alder Lake is not selling well despite the rave reviews. The chips are fine, but there are teething hurdles,
1. Lack of DDR5 memory, and even if they are available, they cost a lot. I suspect scalpers are also flipping DDR5. While we have the option to use DDR4, but I feel it is not allowing the new platform to perform to its full potential. Also if you opt for a DDR4 board, you can't switch to DDR5 over time without having to change the entire mobo
2. Lack of cooler options, and/or, existing cooler incompatible or not providing optimal cooling due to issue with mounting pressure
3. Need to use buggy Windows 11 for best experience
For most, I feel point 3 is tolerable, but the first 2 points are the show stopper for Alder Lake demand.
1) the DDR5 point is completely irrelevant and surely you know this by now. Not only did we show that DDR5 isn't require to unlock the full performance of the 12th gen processors in almost all instances, so has just about every other hardware tester. DDR5 is an option here, trying to make it appear as a negative is dubious at best.
2) New socket, new coolers, that's pretty normal. That said we've had good sucess using older coolers without issue on the 12700K and 12600K.
3) Again like DDR5, you don't need Windows 11, 12th gen for the most part works just fine with Windows 10 and any existing compatability issues are being addressed.
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +206
As you probably know, TSMC 5nm is already fully booked. So Nvidia was wise to go for Samsung to avoid fully booked TSMC node and then Nvidia is wise when they go for fully booked TSMC node.

Bwahaha!
5nm is not 7nm, hahah sigh. Do you even know how a fab work? You pay for allocation, but AMD had tons of products using the exact same process meaning AMD had to prioritize and they downplayed GPUs.

Why do you think Nvidia will use both Samsung and TSMC going forward? Nvidia looks to cap those 90% dGPU marketshare soon. AMD and Intel can then fight over the remaining 10%

Sadly for AMD fans for you, Intel is coming for AMDs prime segment; Low to Mid-end (90% of AMDs GPU sales are in low to mid-end)
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
5nm is not 7nm, hahah sigh. Do you even know how a fab work? You pay for allocation, but AMD had tons of products using the exact same process meaning AMD had to prioritize and they downplayed GPUs.

Why do you think Nvidia will use both Samsung and TSMC going forward? Nvidia looks to cap those 90% dGPU marketshare soon. AMD and Intel can then fight over the remaining 10%

Sadly for AMD fans for you, Intel is coming for AMDs prime segment; Low to Mid-end (90% of AMDs GPU sales are in low to mid-end)
Magically you once again turned discussion from Nvidia to AMD.

AMD discrete GPU sales are very small on low end. Because APU's...
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +206
Magically you once again turned discussion from Nvidia to AMD.

AMD discrete GPU sales are very small on low end. Because APU's...
Haha sure, their desktop APUs does not even handle 1080p on low in newer games.

They are pretty much only useful for delivering a video output. Just like Intel APUs, and Intel completely smashes AMD in terms of APU sales, since all their desktop CPUs pretty much have a GPU, which also can serve to speed up encoding of video, alot.

If you think AMDs APUs are eating away at their GPU sales, you must be joking or you are completely clueless. Even the lowest end dedicated GPU is lightyears ahead of any desktop APU.

Most AMD desktop APUs are used in ultra cheap OEM machines. Pointless and pure trash for gaming.
 
Last edited:

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
Haha sure, their desktop APUs does not even handle 1080p on low in newer games.

They are pretty much only useful for delivering a video output. Just like Intel APUs, and Intel completely smashes AMD in terms of APU sales, since all their desktop CPUs pretty much have a GPU, which also can serve to speed up encoding of video, alot.

If you think AMDs APUs are eating away at their GPU sales, you must be joking or you are completely clueless. Even the lowest end dedicated GPU is lightyears ahead of any desktop APU.

Most AMD desktop APUs are used in ultra cheap OEM machines. Pointless and pure trash for gaming.
We are talking AMD here, not Intel: https://www.techspot.com/review/2293-amd-ryzen-5700g/
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +206
And it's still a horrible gaming experience, as you can see in your own link...
They say it's for 720p gaming 😂

This is not for gamers at all. No desktop APU will serve a gamer. And this is why AMDs APUs don't steal sales form their GPUs. Night and day difference in performance.

Even a 5 year old GTX 1060 completely smashes that Ryzen 5700G APU in gaming (4 times faster on average) and the 5700G is not even cheap to begin with. Pointless.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
And it's still a horrible gaming experience, as you can see in your own link...
They say it's for 720p gaming 😂

This is not for gamers at all. No desktop APU will serve a gamer. And this is why AMDs APUs don't steal sales form their GPUs. Night and day difference in performance.

Even a 5 year old GTX 1060 completely smashes that Ryzen 5700G APU in gaming (4 times faster on average) and the 5700G is not even cheap to begin with. Pointless.
Even the lowest end dedicated GPU is lightyears ahead of any desktop APU.
RX550 is far from lowest end (at launch priced around $100, lowest end at that time was around $30) and has around same speed.

And now GTX 1060 is "lowest end", launch price was around $250 :joy:

As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
 
Were these tests done with or without the KB5007215 patch that solved some of the performance issues that Windows 11 had with AMD CPUs?
 
Super late to the conversation, but whatever. Everyone feeling the need to compare core counts specifically isn't looking at the future, nor being realistic about the past. These days we have all sorts of processors on the market that have very varied core architecture, along with very different caching and sharing.

If a processor gets released that has 100 cores and is priced at the same as a 5600x and can run the same workloads, I expect to be comparing them. Because it's about what I'm going to pay for at the end of the day. Alternatively if someone came out with a 2 core processor (writing is on the wall with this possibility though) that somehow miraculously destroyed all 8+ core processors at the same price point. Yep I'm going to take a look at that too.

I've owned AMD, Intel... and yep I even bought a Cyrix (who doesn't remember the 6x86) back in the day. I've owned everything from 80386s to Pentium Pros, The beautiful K7 chips, Celerons, i9s, R9s, 4-way Xeons, 32 core TRs and everything in between. And I've used even broader than that including the 88s, a vast array of Motorola chips, ARM-based, and Alpha RISC based chips that were incredible in their day, and now GPU cores for specialised processing. I couldn't care less about the manufacturer, I care about my workloads, I care about what I can do with these chips. Does it bother me that 6 core is validly compared to 6 core P (+4 core E)? No way. It's very relevant and it shows innovation.

Intel is showing real promise again. More of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.