Not long ago, a reader asked a simple but familiar question: which CPU is the better pick for budget gaming, the Core i5 12400F or the Ryzen 5 7500F? The 12400F first landed in early 2022, and when we reviewed it at launch we were genuinely impressed with what it brought to the table. For quite some time, it was our go-to budget part.
What keeps it relevant nearly four years later is not nostalgia, but pricing. Intel is still selling it and at a sizable discount. You can currently pick one up for $135, which undercuts the Ryzen 5 7500F at $165.
The Core i5 12400F earned its reputation rather nippy 6-core, 12-thread processor with 18 MB of L3 cache and a 4.4 GHz boost clock. The question now is how well it holds up today. To find out, we are testing it on the MSI Z790 Carbon WiFi motherboard with 32 GB of DDR5 6000 CL30 memory, the same memory configuration we will use for the Ryzen 5 lineup, including the 7500F. Those parts will be tested on the Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master.
Both motherboards are updated to the latest BIOS, and we are pairing them with the Asus ROG Astral RTX 5090 OC Edition to eliminate, or at least minimize, GPU bottlenecks. That gives us a cleaner view of actual CPU performance in games. We are focusing on low resolution testing and running each title with both medium and ultra presets. With that, let us jump into the data.
Benchmarks
Marvel Rivals
First up we have Marvel Rivals, and for this test we are using the built-in benchmark so you can compare your results with what we show here. Using the medium settings, the 12400F limited performance to 142 fps on average with 1% lows of 101 fps, which is certainly very playable. Even so, the 7500F was almost 20% faster, and with an average frame rate of 169 fps you are getting a better high refresh rate experience with the Ryzen processor.
Using the Ultra settings, the 12400F was again noticeably slower than the 7500F. It limited the average frame rate to 109 fps while dropping the 1% lows to 84 fps. This meant the 7500F was 15% faster.
Rainbow Six Siege X
Next up we have Rainbow Six Siege X. Here the 12400F shows why it was a fan favorite, as it is still able to push over 300 fps, landing at 301 fps on average. The 7500F was a massive 35% faster, but for most players the jump from 300 to 400 fps is not going to be all that noticeable.
The margin grew with the Ultra+ settings. Here the 7500F was 42% faster, but we are still talking about 280 to 398 fps. One number is much larger on paper, but in practice most gamers would not notice the difference. Within the context of this comparison, the 7500F does offer better value for this title given it costs only slightly more.
Assassin's Creed Shadows
In heavily GPU-limited titles such as Assassin's Creed Shadows, the CPU does not play a major role and the value equation shifts in favor of the 12400F. Here the 7500F is less than 5% faster, so performance was essentially the same and the experience would be indistinguishable.
Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered
The 12400F also delivered a great experience in Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered, averaging 148 fps with the medium preset. This made the 7500F 17% faster. It was also 15% faster when using the very high preset, and this margin is a bit more meaningful as it takes the average from 126 fps up to 145 fps.
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Moving on to Cyberpunk 2077, the 12400F reached 131 fps on average with the medium preset, making the 7500F 24% faster, though only 12% faster when looking at the 1% lows. Interestingly, we still see a 23% margin in favor of the 7500F when using the ray tracing ultra preset, increasing the average from 88 fps with the 12400F to 108 fps. The 1% lows also saw a similar 20% uplift.
Space Marine 2
The 12400F struggles a bit in Space Marine 2, limiting performance to levels similar to the 8400F, with average frame rates in the mid 80s. This meant the 7500F was 15% faster with the medium preset and 13% faster using the ultra preset.
The Last of Us Part II Remastered
Performance in The Last of Us Part II is reasonably competitive. The 7500F was just 11% faster with the medium preset and 13% faster with the very high preset. Although the Ryzen processor is clearly faster, the margins are not significant.
Spider-Man 2
Testing Spider-Man 2 shows the 7500F is 13% faster with the medium settings, increasing the average from 151 fps on the 12400F to 170 fps. Using the ultimate ray tracing settings increased that margin to 18%, and the gains here are meaningful as the jump from 68 fps to 80 fps is noticeable.
Mafia: The Old Country
Next we have Mafia: The Old Country, and for some reason the 12400F struggled with this game, limiting performance to just under 90 fps with similarly weak 1% lows to the 8400F. This meant the 7500F was 33% faster on average when using the medium settings, and a massive 62% faster when comparing 1% lows.
The more GPU limited Epic preset reduced that margin to 28%, but the 7500F remained much faster and delivered a noticeably better experience.
Assetto Corsa Competizione
The 7500F is much faster in ACC. Again we see the 12400F performing similarly to the 8400F. With the medium preset the 7500F was 32% faster, and 24% faster using the Epic preset. This is an easy win for the Ryzen 5 processor, and it does a much better job enabling a high refresh rate experience at maximum quality settings.
Baldur's Gate 3
Despite being CPU demanding, performance between the 12400F and 7500F is very similar in Baldur's Gate 3. The 7500F was just 8% faster using the medium settings and 5% faster with Ultra. There is essentially nothing between them, and you would not be able to tell which CPU you were using based on the experience.
Counter-Strike 2
If you are a serious Counter-Strike 2 player, the 7500F is the better choice. It was 42% faster using the medium settings and 36% faster with the very high settings.
12 Game Average
Here is a look at the 12 game average data. As we saw throughout the gaming benchmarks, the 12400F performs very similarly to the 8400F. This meant that on average the 7500F delivered 20% greater performance with the medium settings and 18% better performance with the ultra settings. It is fair to say the Ryzen 5 part is roughly 20% faster.
Head-to-Head - Medium
Here is how the 12400F and 7500F compared across all 12 games when looking at the individual margins. The largest advantage for the Ryzen 5 processor appeared in Counter Strike 2, followed by Rainbow Six Siege, which suggests the 7500F is well suited for esports titles. We also saw a very large margin in Mafia: The Old Country.
There were only two titles with single-digit differences, Baldur's Gate 3 and Assassin's Creed Shadows. The latter is heavily GPU limited, which explains the small margin there.
Head-to-Head - Ultra
Switching to the ultra data does mix the order up a bit. Still it's Counter-Strike 2 and Rainbow Six Siege where the 7500F smashes the 12400F, while we're also seeing over 20% gains in Cyberpunk 2077 and ACC.
A Clear Winner, With One Catch
Despite both architectures arriving in 2022 with 6 cores with 12 threads, the Ryzen 7500F is clearly faster. It delivers roughly 20% higher gaming performance on average while using slightly less power. It is important to note that this data was recorded using DDR5 6000 CL30 memory for both processors. Switching the 12400F to DDR4 would only widen the gap.
So the question becomes whether the 12400F is still worth buying, especially now that it can be found at very low prices. It currently costs $135, and Newegg has recently sold it for $116. The listing is still active, but stock is on backorder, so it should return at that price. For this comparison we assume you are building a new system or upgrading the platform entirely, which means picking up a CPU, motherboard, and memory.
Looking at the CPU alone, the choice seems straightforward. The 12400F sits at around $135 while the 7500F goes for $165. Spending an extra $30 for the 7500F gets you about 20% more performance, so choosing the Ryzen seems like a no brainer. Once you factor in the other components of a full build, the price difference shrinks even further.
The real advantage for the 7500F is not just that it is faster. It also gives you a clear upgrade path. A 12400F system today leaves you aiming for a 13th or 14th generation Core i7 or i9 later on. Buying those second hand is not ideal, and dropping such power hungry chips into a budget LGA1700 motherboard is rarely a great move.
Even so, there's still one angle where the 12400F can put up a fight, and it all comes down to DDR5 pricing. Newegg's cheapest 32 GB DDR5 kit costs $170, and it is a low quality DDR5 5600 CL46 kit. Decent kits are only slightly better at $180.
In comparison, 32 GB DDR4 kits start at $108 for 3200 CL16. Good DDR4 3600 CL16 kits cost around $170, so DDR4 has not escaped the current DRAM price surge either. But at least the entry level options are more affordable. Pairing that $108 DDR4 3200 CL16 kit with the Asrock B760M Pro RS WiFi at $130 brings the total 12400F combo to ~$370.
The Ryzen 7500F combo, while avoiding Asrock motherboards due to recent issues of CPUs being damaged, uses the MSI Pro B650 S WiFi for $130, the same price as the Intel board. That puts the full AMD setup at $470, which is a 27% premium. The issue is entirely the cost of DDR5, and there is no way around that on the AM5 platform. And remember, the 12400F will be slower when paired with DDR4 3200 CL16, so the 7500F could end up 30% ahead anyway, bringing the value equation back into balance.
You can trim the price of an AM5 build by going with the very inexpensive Ryzen 5 8400F, which performs similarly to the 12400F. That option narrows the pricing gap even further and puts additional pressure on the Intel setup.
The unfortunate reality is that right now is a difficult moment to upgrade anything due to skyrocketing DRAM prices, and of course this happens just as GPU pricing finally starts to come down.