News Core i5-12400F Shows Strong Gaming Performance in New Benchmarks

[Admin]

Reviewers managed to grab an engineering sample of the yet unreleased Core i5-12400F and run it through benchmarks. It shows very strong gaming performance, rivaling the 11900K.

Core i5-12400F Shows Strong Gaming Performance in New Benchmarks : Read more

 

[helper800]

Very noice!

 

[Dr3ams]

Every reviewer I saw on YouTube was using a high end RTX for benching. A more realistic benchmark would be one using GPUs that most users have or can afford. The subsequent bottleneck would make any claims by Intel or the reviewers moot.

 

[VforV]

I actually want this 12400f to be as good as Ryzen 5600x, but only because I want to upgrade my Ryzen 3600, so AMD should drop the prices quite a bit.

Otherwise I couldn't care less about Alder Lake.

 

[helper800]

I actually want this 12400f to be as good as Ryzen 5600x, but only because I want to upgrade my Ryzen 3600, so AMD should drop the prices quite a bit.

Otherwise I couldn't care less about Alder Lake.

Well you are in luck because it seems it is at least as good as a 5600x and probably a little faster. The thing is the intel platform cost will drive up the price for a while making it less of a value proposition than it initially seems. When the b660 motherboards come out and DDR5 becomes reasonable 100 dollars for 16gb or 200 for 32gb, then we are talking huge value over current AMD. I suspect AMD will shift the cost of its current stack by about 20-50 dollars eventually as well though.

 

[King_V]

Now with this, I will say I'm impressed. If they're really getting that performance, and keeping it within the 65W envelope, then Intel has done a good thing here.

 

[LolaGT]

Wow, looks to be a little beast. They will sell a bunch of those to the blue badge average gaming crowd. .

 

[TerryLaze]

Every reviewer I saw on YouTube was using a high end RTX for benching. A more realistic benchmark would be one using GPUs that most users have or can afford. The subsequent bottleneck would make any claims by Intel or the reviewers moot.

Yes and productivity should be done with a more realistic benchmark like facebook and gmail because that's what people do.

 

[salgado18]

Now with this, I will say I'm impressed. If they're really getting that performance, and keeping it within the 65W envelope, then Intel has done a good thing here.

It doesn't for almost a minute, enough to run a benchmark. Does it keep performance up for extended periods of time, say a few Metro runs like Tom's does?

I mean, if the performance numbers are measured on loose power limits, then it is a 117W processor, not a 65W. If you constraint it to 65W (and the others to their limits), how do they behave over time? People on cheaper motherboards don't play games for 56 seconds.

 

[TerryLaze]

It doesn't for almost a minute, enough to run a benchmark. Does it keep performance up for extended periods of time, say a few Metro runs like Tom's does?

I mean, if the performance numbers are measured on loose power limits, then it is a 117W processor, not a 65W. If you constraint it to 65W (and the others to their limits), how do they behave over time? People on cheaper motherboards don't play games for 56 seconds.

For any of this to matter you would first have to measure how much power metro or any other game draws. The 12400 has a 4Ghz top so it might never even reach 65W when running a game, especially at higher resolutions or with weaker GPUs.

In general "lose power limits" is an average meaning it will not go above PL1 if it doesn't go equally below PL1 as well.
Same goes for turbo duration, it will only reach the full pl2 if it doesn't skew the average and only for as long as it doesn't skew the average.

Keep in mind that most if not all benchmarks you have seen have been with power limits lifted and infinite TAU.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/core-technical-resources.html

 

[King_V]

Keep in mind that most if not all benchmarks you have seen have been with power limits lifted and infinite TAU.

If that is the "out of the box experience" then that's what should be applied, no?

Unless you're telling us that AM4 boards also allow the 65W CPUs to go as high as the max wattage that the AM4 socket supports (in the 140s or so, I think).

 

[hotaru251]

i mean...prolly a short victory.

stacked cache update to 5000 series is in likely jan/feb. (with up to 15% better fps than og versions)

then likely few more months we get Zen4....which will likely crush alder lake as every new release of Zen is a moderate performance jump.

but i am glad intel is back to being strong. competition and options are beneficial to everyone.

I personally will avoid alder lake (as i dont liek the infernal temps and pwr draw) as I won't pay the early adopter fee for DDR5.
By time Zen 4 is out likely be cheaper to adopt that standard.

 

[mdd1963]

The article states this 12400F CPU is equipped w/ simply 6 "P" cores, with no 'E" cores....

Why are there only 6 threads? (Is Hyperthreading disabled , crippling it for segmentation , or was that a typo?)

 

[mdd1963]

It doesn't for almost a minute, enough to run a benchmark. Does it keep performance up for extended periods of time, say a few Metro runs like Tom's does?

I mean, if the performance numbers are measured on loose power limits, then it is a 117W processor, not a 65W. If you constraint it to 65W (and the others to their limits), how do they behave over time? People on cheaper motherboards don't play games for 56 seconds.

Good question!

Also, if on a decent mainboard, will folks be able to effectively remove/override the 65W TDP limit, and/or boost duration limits, potentially allowing it to run at 100-125W, closer to at least halfway approaching the 12600K's numbers. (As it is, the 12600K has quite a jump upward in delivered performance, I'd expect it to be a popular purchase...!)

 

[samopa]

When they released the 8 core 16 thread version of AlderLake I'm game.

 

[renz496]

Well you are in luck because it seems it is at least as good as a 5600x and probably a little faster. The thing is the intel platform cost will drive up the price for a while making it less of a value proposition than it initially seems. When the b660 motherboards come out and DDR5 becomes reasonable 100 dollars for 16gb or 200 for 32gb, then we are talking huge value over current AMD. I suspect AMD will shift the cost of its current stack by about 20-50 dollars eventually as well though.

12400F should be fine when paired with decent DDR4.

 

[RodroX]

I would wait for reviews to make comments. I can bet the 12400 will surelly be way better than any other core i5 of 10th and 11th gen, and may even beat 5600X in many tasks, but I wana know test conditions and system and components used for this.

 

[samopa]

The article states this 12400F CPU is equipped w/ simply 6 "P" cores, with no 'E" cores....

Why are there only 6 threads? (Is Hyperthreading disabled , crippling it for segmentation , or was that a typo?)

Intel, usually, in order to differentiate between i7 and i5, disabled HyperThreading for i5 series CPU.

 

[helper800]

12400F should be fine when paired with decent DDR4.

Yeah, but then you are stuck with a DDR4 board and if you wanted better you'd have to get a new board.

 

[TerryLaze]

If that is the "out of the box experience" then that's what should be applied, no?

Unless you're telling us that AM4 boards also allow the 65W CPUs to go as high as the max wattage that the AM4 socket supports (in the 140s or so, I think).

Yeas AM4 boards also have examples where everything is put to practically infinite.
It's ok if reviews show "out of the box experience" but it is not ok if this is the only thing they show.
A professional should show what a 12 year old would get but also what somebody that does some fine tuning can get.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc

On the Gigabyte X570 Master with the 3900X, PBO limits were as follows: PPT 1200W, TDC 540A, and EDC 600A. On the MSI Godlike, the limits were: 1000W, 490A, and 630A. With PBO disabled the limits were PPT 142W, TDC 95A, and EDC 140A on both boards, which is correct AMD spec for 105W TDP processors.

 

[VforV]

Yeah, but then you are stuck with a DDR4 board and if you wanted better you'd have to get a new board.

You either chose the cheaper option, which gimps performance and future proofing or you chose the much more expensive option, for a little more performance (not worth it for that alone only) and future proofing.

I find building an Alder Lake system now you get to chose between 2 bad options. I don't like it at all and I'm glad my upgrade path is Zen3 and Zen3D without missing much performance and being cheaper (soon).

 

[RodroX]

The article states this 12400F CPU is equipped w/ simply 6 "P" cores, with no 'E" cores....

Why are there only 6 threads? (Is Hyperthreading disabled , crippling it for segmentation , or was that a typo?)

I think its a typo, intel will shot itslef in the foot if decided to disable HT on this CPU. The difference in CB R23 is probably do to the lack of efficent cores, lower boost frecuency (and I don't believe this is the case but perhaps smaller L3 cache?).

 

[renz496]

Yeah, but then you are stuck with a DDR4 board and if you wanted better you'd have to get a new board.

only an issue to those that upgrade on regular basis. if you're the type like to do that better go with AMD in the first place.

 

[dan1991Ro]

Every reviewer I saw on YouTube was using a high end RTX for benching. A more realistic benchmark would be one using GPUs that most users have or can afford. The subsequent bottleneck would make any claims by Intel or the reviewers moot.

The difference there dissapears in many cases, even at 1080p.If you use a 5700xt for example, the difference between 1080p max wirt a 3600, 10400f, 11400f,5600x, 5900x etc even lower end cpus like the 3100, 3300x, 10100f would be minimal.Going lower than that, with a 5600xt, rtx 2060, 2060 super, would show a much smaller difference.So fast ram and a fast cpu only matter(or matter much more) if you arnet gpu bottlenecked, which with midrange cards, excepting SOME but not all esports, you would be.

 

[mdd1963]

Every reviewer I saw on YouTube was using a high end RTX for benching. A more realistic benchmark would be one using GPUs that most users have or can afford. The subsequent bottleneck would make any claims by Intel or the reviewers moot.

It is up to the user/potential purchaser to know that if you equip a 12900K with a GTX1060, your FPS would be likely little improved at 1080P compared to that of a 7700K. However, I do not think most folks want to see CPUs compared equipped with a GTX1050.

Conversely, most do not test new powerful GPUs using only an R3-2200 or i3-1100F either....

Your assessment that those with mid-range GPUs are not going to see large FPS increases, however, is 100% correct.