Intel Core i7-12700KF Review: Better than Core i9?

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,465   +2,435
Lol I think an AMD price drop is imminent.

Canada:
5950X (in stock) - $1039
12900K (minimal stock) - $749
5800X (in stock) - $619 / $499 sale price
12700K (in stock) - $529
12700KF (not in stock yet) - $499
12600K (in stock) - $369
12600KF (not in stock yet) - $329

If buying a system now, I'd go ADL, because X570 is dead as in no Zen 4 support.
 
Last edited:

Nobina

Posts: 3,782   +4,214
All Intel 12 series CPUs so far are good but not so impressive if you have anything recent, especially for gaming. It's gonna get hyped up because 11 series was so bad and even then people were defending it, I can imagine the shitstorm over this.

What AMD have going for them is they made it easy for people to upgrade without having to switch platforms. I'm sure I can leave 5-10% performance on the table and just get a 5800X than buy a new expensive motherboard and RAM for Intel, maybe a PSU as well.

I'm bummed out that my CPU has died and I got a 5600X a few months ago when I could've waitied and got it for much less now that Intel is hitting back.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 351   +452
Interested to know what is going on with AoE4, it doesn’t care about core count (5800 vs 5900, 11700 vs 11900) but 12700/900 blow them away. Does alder lake do it just with single thread performance? That is promising for less well cpu optimised games (basically not AAA titles). Keen to see what people find in games like Arma and DCS.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,308   +7,247
I get CPU from Microcenter. I never see CPU for the MSRP. They are almost always marked down immediately before purchase availability.
 

G0DofPaiN

Posts: 91   +101
I like that intel is back in the game. I will build my PC when the 13th gen launches and ddr5 gets better performance. Any intel PC that I had just worked as intended, no driver crashes, no usb disconnecting, no problem with ram running at XPM speed as I have/had with AMD builds.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,308   +7,247
It's amazing how quickly CPU generations are advancing. I can still use an 8-core 5960x with 32GB DDR4 and a 3090 to run virtually any game on the market - even when streaming to Youtube. I've proved this with Cyberpunk 2077 and Far Cry 6.

Now we've got 12th generation 12 core CPU and DDR5 RAM.

These are great times for video editing cause games are not in any way demanding this much.
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 217   +174
Wonder if games will get more thread-heavy in the next couple years. They still have to target the consoles with their 8-core Zen 2s after all
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,212   +4,261
Seems like the lower the tier the more aggressive the pricing, that's nice.

Now don't get me wrong I still think that for the time being, a decent z690 motherboard even if you go for dd4 in addition to pretty much an AIO, a case that can fit one and a sufficiently powerful PSU (Last one can be painful to source after a certain threshold of available power) means that overall it costs more to build a rig for 12700K and KF.

However I still would probably consider it vs a 5900x based rig for example: it can push most tasks to that level of performance or above and even though is less logical threads it's still more than the 5800x its a true in-between if total core count is your first and foremost concern so nice going for intel in this one, that's it no re: from me this time.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,212   +4,261
Wonder if games will get more thread-heavy in the next couple years. They still have to target the consoles with their 8-core Zen 2s after all
I doubt it because there's usually a big difference between "can they" optimize and "should they" optimize. Past what you mention of the core count of the consoles right now there's also other reasons why they probably shouldn't.

It's not as simple as saying "Ok get better performance on more cores now" This is like say, building a house. You've got a size for the house you need so for 1 person to build it that would take 3 months, fair enough. Add more people? 2 persons probably can manage 45 days. 3 people can manage 30 days good. This might keep going until you reach say, about 10 people: once you have maybe 2 or 3 people on each major task, you can't just bring more people in

You could, but people start getting in the way of each other. You now need 15 people plus 1 or 2 that need to just coordinate the teams and even that's not guaranteed: there is such a thing as the maximum amount of people on any one task and once you reach that number, adding more people even if you could, just wont help.

So it's not as simple as saying "Well have your game use more available cores for more tasks" it becomes really, really expensive and difficult to do and it's probably not worth it.

It would feel like the equivalent of inventing new materials, new construction methods even new civil engineering principles just to build a single house or group of houses faster. It can be done but it's unlikely to ever happen at that level.

That being said you gotta think that at least 1 full year but more likely 2 to 2.5 years of supply problems for the AAA PC Gaming market will have an effect. It's not immediate but companies know that even if they were hessitant of all the above points before this crisis, now that they expect gaming PC sales to at the very least slow down if not start regressing well that's gotta be on their minds. Specially because there's not a single thing being done to not only stop this from happening but to prevent it from happening in the future: it truly is looking that PC gamers might only get like 6 months or a year to get decent prices on hardware in between cycles of crypto currency expansion where they go 2 years without buying new hardware.
 

amghwk

Posts: 1,187   +1,111
Amazing. Intel's comeback is quite impressive, despite the comparatively less efficient Alder Lake processors.

Ryzen series processors almost sealed the fate of Intel, but it couldn't have been further than the truth.

I just got myself a 5900X and I can feel some sort of regret, unless some people can console me on my purchase.

As I have mentioned before, I'm not a fanboy of either, but as a consumer I would purchase the best with what I can afford.

If Intel won this round, I'm happy for it.
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 217   +174
I doubt it because there's usually a big difference between "can they" optimize and "should they" optimize. Past what you mention of the core count of the consoles right now there's also other reasons why they probably shouldn't.

It's not as simple as saying "Ok get better performance on more cores now" This is like say, building a house. You've got a size for the house you need so for 1 person to build it that would take 3 months, fair enough. Add more people? 2 persons probably can manage 45 days. 3 people can manage 30 days good. This might keep going until you reach say, about 10 people: once you have maybe 2 or 3 people on each major task, you can't just bring more people in

You could, but people start getting in the way of each other. You now need 15 people plus 1 or 2 that need to just coordinate the teams and even that's not guaranteed: there is such a thing as the maximum amount of people on any one task and once you reach that number, adding more people even if you could, just wont help.

So it's not as simple as saying "Well have your game use more available cores for more tasks" it becomes really, really expensive and difficult to do and it's probably not worth it.

It would feel like the equivalent of inventing new materials, new construction methods even new civil engineering principles just to build a single house or group of houses faster. It can be done but it's unlikely to ever happen at that level.

That being said you gotta think that at least 1 full year but more likely 2 to 2.5 years of supply problems for the AAA PC Gaming market will have an effect. It's not immediate but companies know that even if they were hessitant of all the above points before this crisis, now that they expect gaming PC sales to at the very least slow down if not start regressing well that's gotta be on their minds. Specially because there's not a single thing being done to not only stop this from happening but to prevent it from happening in the future: it truly is looking that PC gamers might only get like 6 months or a year to get decent prices on hardware in between cycles of crypto currency expansion where they go 2 years without buying new hardware.
Yep, best time to buy hardware especially GPUs will be in the next crypto bear market. Maybe sometime next year or 2023.
Also even the games that can spam render threads effectively like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or Doom Eternal don't see much gain going from the 5800X to the 5900X
 

flee2020

Posts: 29   +26
Since the days of the Intel Pentium CPUs, I usually chose the processor that is one step down from the top of the range as it represents better price-performance. It looks like the same formula works for Alder Lake processors - the i7-12700K is the one to buy if you are looking to build a high performance PC today.
 

maroon1

Posts: 129   +143
12700KF is competing with 5900X based on these benchmarks....... 5800X has no chance


For games, all high-end CPU seems to performs same, there is small difference between 5800X, 5950X and 12700KF.... Any of these CPU will fine for gaming.

Power consumption on 12700KF is much lower than 12900K.... This proves that only small drops in clock speed in alder lake can result big decrease in power consumption
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 840   +1,452
I could drive to my local Micro Center store and purchase a 5800X for $300.

Or I could spend $500 for 5900X.

Or I could spend $450 for a 12700K.

I'd skip on the 5800X and it would be a toss up between the 5900X and the 12700K - it would come down to what else is available for purchase to fill my needs. You couldn't really go wrong with either option.
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 217   +174
I could drive to my local Micro Center store and purchase a 5800X for $300.

Or I could spend $500 for 5900X.

Or I could spend $450 for a 12700K.

I'd skip on the 5800X and it would be a toss up between the 5900X and the 12700K - it would come down to what else is available for purchase to fill my needs. You couldn't really go wrong with either option.
yeah, or wait a bit for the V-cache Ryzens
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 532   +678
These Alder Lake chips are quite impressive for what they are. But that was to be expected considering the new node and large die.

Intel really is using their clock speed advantage here, and it shows. I don't see AMD getting anywhere near 5ghz with the Zen3 refresh, so don't expect a AMD to make a comeback on single thread performance quite yet. That will have to happen with Zen 4, which is a major overhaul.

I am a little disappointed in game performance uptick. It really doesn't match the jump in other categories. DDR5 does bring some nice gains in minimum framerate in some titles, but hardly worth the cost. While Intel may have taken back the gaming crown, it isn't by much and this is one area that the Zen 3 refresh may actually favor. So the gaming crown win may be a very short lived accomplishment by intel.

At least Intel has improved the Performance per watt, it was looking pretty bad. Intel is stepping up their core count game that is for sure.

Intel will have pretty much a year lead for everything other than gaming it looks like. I wonder how the mobile chips turn out for Alder Lake.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
These are coming in cheaper than a 5800X in the U.K. and the Z690 DDR4 boards are about the same price as an X570 board but has PCIe5 and thunderbolt. You have to be braindead if you choose a 5800X over this at this point.

But the real star is the 12600K, looking at reviews on other sites, it’s faster than even the 5950X at gaming, faster than a 5800X at MT, supposedly a good overclocker and cheaper than a 5600X.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,640   +2,419
Lol I think an AMD price drop is imminent.

Canada:
5950X (in stock) - $1039
12900K (minimal stock) - $749
5800X (in stock) - $619 / $499 sale price
12700K (in stock) - $529
12700KF (not in stock yet) - $499
12600K (in stock) - $369
12600KF (not in stock yet) - $329

If buying a system now, I'd go ADL, because X570 is dead as in no Zen 4 support.

Canada computers

5950X in stock for $929
5900X in stock for $659
5800X in stock for $499
5600X in stock for $374

12900k in stock for $749
12700k in stock for $529
12600k in stock for $369

I see some prices corrections with coming for sure. So will be great for those on AM4 that are on cpu's older than zen 3.

For a brand new build ADL-S is a good choice but you will take a hit on board prices and Ram. As for PCIe 5.0 there are no devices out for it right now so not really a big deal.

These Alder Lake chips are quite impressive for what they are. But that was to be expected considering the new node and large die.

Intel really is using their clock speed advantage here, and it shows. I don't see AMD getting anywhere near 5ghz with the Zen3 refresh, so don't expect a AMD to make a comeback on single thread performance quite yet. That will have to happen with Zen 4, which is a major overhaul.

I am a little disappointed in game performance uptick. It really doesn't match the jump in other categories. DDR5 does bring some nice gains in minimum framerate in some titles, but hardly worth the cost. While Intel may have taken back the gaming crown, it isn't by much and this is one area that the Zen 3 refresh may actually favor. So the gaming crown win may be a very short lived accomplishment by intel.

At least Intel has improved the Performance per watt, it was looking pretty bad. Intel is stepping up their core count game that is for sure.

Intel will have pretty much a year lead for everything other than gaming it looks like. I wonder how the mobile chips turn out for Alder Lake.

AMD already does 5Ghz single core boost on Zen 3

cpu z 5800X5Ghz.PNG
 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 217   +174
Heck a lot of people are still fine on PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 wasn't really heavily adopted (mostly just X570 and B550 boards)