Intel is changing things up with the non-K versions of Alder Lake

mongeese

Posts: 541   +111
Staff member
Recap: In past generations, K and non-K Intel processors have differed mostly in their overclocking potential: the former allows it, and the latter doesn’t. Depending on the model, Intel has also downclocked the non-K version by anywhere from a hundred megahertz to about a gigahertz.

Something is different about Alder Lake’s non-K versions. If you haven’t noticed, they’re not released yet -- a delay that's only happened one other time in the last five generations. And, according to user DDAA117, who accurately leaked the specifications of the K processors earlier this year, the non-K versions will intermittently have large deviations from their fully featured counterparts.

Between veteran leaker Momomo, mistaken retailer listings, and DDAA117, there seems to be a clear picture of the non-K processors out there. There’s even an actual photo of the i9-12900, i5-12600, i5-12500, and i5-12400 circulating around...

At the top of the heap, the 12900 sits quite comfortably as the Intel processor to beat for non-overclockers. It doesn’t lose much to its K counterpart; it has the same 8P + 8E core configuration, and it only loses 100 MHz on the performance cores' boost clock and 1 GHz on the performance cores' base clock.

It’s the same with the 12700, except that it loses 1.5 GHz on the base clock.

Meanwhile, the 12600 loses a lot. It uses the mid-rang Alder Lake silicon with no efficiency cores, while the 12600K uses the high-end silicon with 4 out of 8 efficiency cores enabled. Hence, the 12600 has 6 performance cores in total, while its counterpart has 6P + 4E cores. Its performance cores' boost clock is also 100 MHz lower, and the base clock drops by 400 MHz.

  12900 12700 12600 12500 12400
P-Cores 8/16 6/12
E-Cores 8/8 4/4 0
P-Core Boost 5.1 GHz 4.9 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.6 GHz 4.4 GHz
P-Core Base 2.4 GHz 2.1 GHz 3.3 GHz 3.0 GHz 2.5 GHz
Cache 30 MB 25 MB 18 MB

There aren’t any K versions of the 12500 and 12400 to compare them to. As standalone processors, they’re quite good on paper. All three i5 non-K models have the same six performance cores and only differ minutely in clock speed. The 12500 sits at 4.6 / 3.0 GHz and the 12400 at 4.4 / 2.5 GHz.

The Core i5-12400 is making the rounds. An engineering sample of the F-version of the processor was benchmarked by a French reviewer, and it put up stiff competition against the AMD Ryzen 5600X. It’s also been listed by two retailers, one of which gave the price for the vanilla and the F-version; $224 and $194, respectively.

Although the other retailer didn’t list a price, it claimed to have both the 12400 and 12700 in stock. If that's true and retailers are receiving shipments from Intel, then the chip giant could be preparing for an imminent release. Leakers (and logic) say they could launch in mid-January, following an announcement at CES 2022 during Intel’s presentation on January 4.

Masthead: Pascal Brändle

Permalink to story.

 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,999   +4,798
At $194 the 12400 is going to obliterate the 5600x. Cant wait to see the reviews (and AMD's reaction). The article makes it sound like there is some major change, but really outside of not having near useless e cores, there's no difference between this and any other gen of locked intel parts.

I think the lack of e cores, while explainable as intel using the best silicon for the highest end parts, is still kinda odd, in that the e cores would make more sense on the locked parts found in office PCS then in the k parts found in gaming desktops. Even so, the 12400f, much like the 11400 and 10400, is going to be a rockstar in the budget space once b660 boards come out.
I'm not a fan of Intel's extreme and often arbitrary segmentation. The market and silicon variations requires different products but Intel loves to create as many slices of products as it can even if they don't make sense next to other products.
Well, they could always be like AMD, sell only the highest end part for a bloated price, and if you are on a budget you can go pound sand and eat feces.
 

nodfor

Posts: 139   +248
At $194 the 12400 is going to obliterate the 5600x. Cant wait to see the reviews (and AMD's reaction). The article makes it sound like there is some major change, but really outside of not having near useless e cores, there's no difference between this and any other gen of locked intel parts.

I think the lack of e cores, while explainable as intel using the best silicon for the highest end parts, is still kinda odd, in that the e cores would make more sense on the locked parts found in office PCS then in the k parts found in gaming desktops. Even so, the 12400f, much like the 11400 and 10400, is going to be a rockstar in the budget space once b660 boards come out.

Well, they could always be like AMD, sell only the highest end part for a bloated price, and if you are on a budget you can go pound sand and eat feces.
It won't really obliterate anything, unless affordable mobos come in play
U can get b450s that can be bios upgraded for 5600x compatibility at 80$ usd or even 50$ for mATX
 

deathtrap

Posts: 20   +11
The 12600 non-K will be significantly cheaper than a 12600K wich is for $299 on newegg
the actual prices is see today are
10500 $190
11500 $199
10600 locked and unlocked $205
11600 locked and unlocked $225 (all $250 on launch)
10700F $285

I think the $250 launchprice for the 12600 non-K is possible because the die is smaller, less L3 and no E-Cores
 

deathtrap

Posts: 20   +11
Regarding there are no "cheap" non-X non-G Zen3 anywhere in sight ... he is right in my opinion
and to speak clearly, if AMD has nothing for me when the 12600 non-K comes out, I would buy intel
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,564
AMD only sells one part?

I believe your fanboyism has blinded you to even the most basic of facts.
I think he’s referring to zen 3 where AMD only rolled out premium options. So for an 8 core there was only a 5800X and no 5700X or 5700 etc.

What AMD do is use their product segmentation to get away with significantly raising their prices. They say the 5800X is only $50 more than a 3800XT. But ignore the fact that they didn’t follow up the $300 3700X. Meaning the real world markup on 8 core parts from Zen 2 to Zen 3 was huge, around $150. Same with 6 cores $200 - $300 from Zen 2 to Zen 3.

Both companies engage in practises to extract the maximum possible amount of money from the market. I think it’s unfair to blame AMD for maximising profits. But pointing out that they did doesn’t make anybody a fanboy.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,540   +3,027
I wouldn't mind a 12400 but as @nodfor points out: not without cheap motherboards becoming available first.

As to when that might happen well it's anyone's guest but I would expect to pay no more than say, 140-150 bucks for a mobo I would use on a 200 bucks processor. Might push that closer to 200 if it's say, itx because we know that's far more specialized and not worth doing "low end" itx gotta be mid range at least.

I wouldn't expect cheap, ddr4 motherboards to hit that 150 price range for another 4 to 6 months, perhaps even longer and at that point you might as well also wait for Ryzen 4 anyway. It's a shame since lower power Adler Lake would otherwise be extremely competitive getting my recommendation over Ryzen but given the issues we all know we're going through it's just not going to be attainable anytime soon it's just high power and high price AL chips and mobos or nothing.
 
At $194 the 12400 is going to obliterate the 5600x. Cant wait to see the reviews (and AMD's reaction). The article makes it sound like there is some major change, but really outside of not having near useless e cores, there's no difference between this and any other gen of locked intel parts.

I think the lack of e cores, while explainable as intel using the best silicon for the highest end parts, is still kinda odd, in that the e cores would make more sense on the locked parts found in office PCS then in the k parts found in gaming desktops. Even so, the 12400f, much like the 11400 and 10400, is going to be a rockstar in the budget space once b660 boards come out.

Well, they could always be like AMD, sell only the highest end part for a bloated price, and if you are on a budget you can go pound sand and eat feces.
Just think of what it will do to Intel's high end sales.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,564
Just think of what it will do to Intel's high end sales.
Not much. In this industry people pay well above the odds to have the high end.

In fact with the Alder lake launch, reviewers pretty much all said the 12600K was the part to buy as it beats out any AMD CPU in gaming, uses comparable power and doesn’t cost too much. But it was the 12900K that was out of stock on launch.
 
Not much. In this industry people pay well above the odds to have the high end.

In fact with the Alder lake launch, reviewers pretty much all said the 12600K was the part to buy as it beats out any AMD CPU in gaming, uses comparable power and doesn’t cost too much. But it was the 12900K that was out of stock on launch.
I think if the non k is so good and cheap it will tank Intel's high priced cpu's. Also the lower prices will hurt Intel's margins that have already been sinking.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,564
I think if the non k is so good and cheap it will tank Intel's high priced cpu's. Also the lower prices will hurt Intel's margins that have already been sinking.
The non Ks have always been good and cheap and yet the K variants have always been the top sellers. In fact this article is suggesting the non K will be worse than usual so I don’t see anything changing.

There are literally millions of people out there happy to pay for the best. Even if it doesn’t make sense from a performance per dollar perspective.

Also, Intel have been making near record profits recently. I’m not too sure where you’re getting that their margins are sinking.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,875   +3,176
Well, they could always be like AMD, sell only the highest end part for a bloated price, and if you are on a budget you can go pound sand and eat feces.

You know that‘s exactly what Intel did when they were supply constrained back in 2018 / 2019, right ?

Here‘s from an Anandtech article on the topic, but you can find the same from many different publications:

Intel has increased its 14 nm production capacity in terms of wafer starts per month (WSPM) by 25% in 2019 as compared to 2018, yet the company admits that its backlogged status will persist in the fourth quarter of this year, so not all of its partners will get all the chips they want. The world’s largest supplier of processors continues to give priority to production of server and higher-end client processors, so the situation with supply of entry-level products continues to be uncertain.


But yes, it‘s been almost two years, so it‘s easy to forget.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,999   +4,798
AMD only sells one part?
Well, lets see. For the 6 core 5000 series, you have the 5600x. Damn, that's one part. And it's $300, compared to $159 for the predecessor part, for a 20% uplift. Now THAT is a sour pill to swallow.

I guess you could count the 5600 non x, except that is OEM only. Oh, there's the APUs I guess, if you dont mind paying for a GPU you dont need and a smaller L3 cache. What was the complaint about segmented intel products again? A locked multiplier? At least they dont cut the cache, and the locked parts get within 1-200 mhz of the k parts.

There's also the 3600 for $220, if you dont mind buying a last gen part, of course you can get a 9000 series i5 6 core that will outperform it for even less. Darn, not a good look for AMD there.

I believe your fanboyism has blinded you to even the most basic of facts.
Projection, thy name is ScottSoapbox. Sorry I insulted your glorious AMD. Face facts, AMD abandoned the budget market. You could get, at one point, a 10400f, b560 motherboard, and cheap RAM set for only a little more then a 5600x CPU alone, and such a setup would technically outperform any 3000 series 6 core part in games.
You know that‘s exactly what Intel did when they were supply constrained back in 2018 / 2019, right ?

Here‘s from an Anandtech article on the topic, but you can find the same from many different publications:




But yes, it‘s been almost two years, so it‘s easy to forget.
Both a whataboutism AND a red herring, I'm impressed. Also, wrong.

Intel limited supply. AMD, last time I checked, never bothered releasing non X series chips to anyone but OEMs. Intel didnt refuse to launch i5 9000 series parts other then the k series.

And, of course "well well well intel did it" is not an excuse to abandon the budget market.
I think he’s referring to zen 3 where AMD only rolled out premium options. So for an 8 core there was only a 5800X and no 5700X or 5700 etc.

What AMD do is use their product segmentation to get away with significantly raising their prices. They say the 5800X is only $50 more than a 3800XT. But ignore the fact that they didn’t follow up the $300 3700X. Meaning the real world markup on 8 core parts from Zen 2 to Zen 3 was huge, around $150. Same with 6 cores $200 - $300 from Zen 2 to Zen 3.

Both companies engage in practises to extract the maximum possible amount of money from the market. I think it’s unfair to blame AMD for maximising profits. But pointing out that they did doesn’t make anybody a fanboy.
Exactly, thank you. If you want a zen 3 build, you either pay for the vastly overpriced x series or take a hike back to 2019 chips. Intel at least allows you to buy lower end locked versions of their chips for a cheaper price, and if you are a budget builder the difference is nil, unless you have a 3090 and a 144hz display laying around.

The 5600x represented a 40-100% price increase (depending on market and MSRP VS available price) over the 3600 for a 20% performance increase. And as you mentioned, it also represents a 25% decrease in core count for the same price compared to the 3700. AMD is praised for this for some odd reason. Meanwhile, intel releases a 6 core i5 that can potentially outperform the 5600x for the price of a 3600, and people lambast them for "segmenting the market". It's such a bizzare reaction, as if the existence of a locked part means intel no longer sells the k series chips (it reminds me of how gamers whined about an easier setting being put into dark souls, because how dare mroe casual fans wish to play the game without investing 50 hours into mastering the dodge?).
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,016
AMD only sells one part?

I believe your fanboyism has blinded you to even the most basic of facts.
lol No. He def didn't say that. You did.
If you read around the past couple years, you'd notice AMD has had nothing consistently available for under $300. Read further and you'll find OEM's were literally dying for new sub $300 CPUs for prebuilts after AMD didn't have anything consistently available on their end with Zen 3.

Remember the 5600 non X everyone was gonna wait for? Remember the huge price gap between 5600X and 5800X? No non-X chips in sight compared to past generations.

AMD pulled the 2800 series entirely with Zen+, added a useless 3600X, then abandoned the non-X 5600 part on Zen 3. It's a mess if you really think about it.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,012   +2,016
I think if the non k is so good and cheap it will tank Intel's high priced cpu's. Also the lower prices will hurt Intel's margins that have already been sinking.
LMAO WHAT?!
This isn't Intel first rodeo. They know what ~$80B a year still looks like. You're talking like Intel and AMD switched places as if Intel can't lower prices without feeling the same heat AMD did when AMD had to lower their prices to stay competitive. AMD jacked Zen 3 prices when it was in top. Intel didn't with ADL and it will pay off. And the majority shop at Dell, not Newegg.

Intel margins are expected to drop to 50% before going back up.
 
Last edited:

theruck

Posts: 480   +296
Hey Techspot, why don't you put tags like "rumours" or "opinions" into the articles so we readers can easily just not fall into your clickbait traps?
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,564
After reading up on Intel's corporate history I cannot justify ever buying their products again, even if they are superior.
Then by extension you also can’t buy AMD. Both companies are equally as bad as each other. In fact if you want to get into it Intel donate a lot to developing nations, AMD don’t do anything like that, they give $500m to Formula 1.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 28   +54
Well, lets see. For the 6 core 5000 series, you have the 5600x. Damn, that's one part. And it's $300, compared to $159 for the predecessor part, for a 20% uplift. Now THAT is a sour pill to swallow.

I guess you could count the 5600 non x, except that is OEM only. Oh, there's the APUs I guess, if you dont mind paying for a GPU you dont need and a smaller L3 cache. What was the complaint about segmented intel products again? A locked multiplier? At least they dont cut the cache, and the locked parts get within 1-200 mhz of the k parts.

There's also the 3600 for $220, if you dont mind buying a last gen part, of course you can get a 9000 series i5 6 core that will outperform it for even less. Darn, not a good look for AMD there.

Projection, thy name is ScottSoapbox. Sorry I insulted your glorious AMD. Face facts, AMD abandoned the budget market. You could get, at one point, a 10400f, b560 motherboard, and cheap RAM set for only a little more then a 5600x CPU alone, and such a setup would technically outperform any 3000 series 6 core part in games.

Both a whataboutism AND a red herring, I'm impressed. Also, wrong.

Intel limited supply. AMD, last time I checked, never bothered releasing non X series chips to anyone but OEMs. Intel didnt refuse to launch i5 9000 series parts other then the k series.

And, of course "well well well intel did it" is not an excuse to abandon the budget market.
Exactly, thank you. If you want a zen 3 build, you either pay for the vastly overpriced x series or take a hike back to 2019 chips. Intel at least allows you to buy lower end locked versions of their chips for a cheaper price, and if you are a budget builder the difference is nil, unless you have a 3090 and a 144hz display laying around.

The 5600x represented a 40-100% price increase (depending on market and MSRP VS available price) over the 3600 for a 20% performance increase. And as you mentioned, it also represents a 25% decrease in core count for the same price compared to the 3700. AMD is praised for this for some odd reason. Meanwhile, intel releases a 6 core i5 that can potentially outperform the 5600x for the price of a 3600, and people lambast them for "segmenting the market". It's such a bizzare reaction, as if the existence of a locked part means intel no longer sells the k series chips (it reminds me of how gamers whined about an easier setting being put into dark souls, because how dare mroe casual fans wish to play the game without investing 50 hours into mastering the dodge?).

I vividly remember the days when Intel didn't charged more for a product simply because they had a superior one.

Oh that's right, those days never existed.

Sure, the 5600X is now a bad buy at $300, but it wasn't for some time.

AMD saw an opportunity to make money and they took it...because they're a business. Intel bent everyone over and robbed them for way too long. You should be grateful they saw an opportunity to make some money so they can stick around for a while longer to make sure there is competition against Intel and Nvidia.

If AMD didn't pin intel into a corner and beat them bloody these last few years, you would still be paying ~$300 for a 4C/8T i7.