Question i5-12400 or 5600x which is better for future proof?

[kaustubbhh]

My current spec is built in 2013 -
CPU - i5-3330
GPU - Asus 1060 3GB
Mobo - Gigabyte B75m-d3h
Ram - 8 GB (1333 MHz)
PSU - Corsair VS650
SSD - Crucial BX500

I mainly play Valorant right now getting 80-100 fps with almost 100% CPU load and sudden fps drops and screen freeze once/twice a match or less and office work with heavy multitasking. Currently, I have seen my pc has dropped its performance and mostly works on 80-100% load while heavy multitasking and 40-50% load when in idle with 80+ degrees (I have poor airflow and fans).
My plan is to upgrade all my components except GPU and PSU (will upgrade both in a year or 2). This plan is to upgrade my CPU, Mobo, and RAM right now to continue my current work and Valorant (CPU heavy game to get 200+ fps) given that this should be future-proof so that I can upgrade my GPU to 3060/3070 equivalent next year.

Knowing 12400 has launched recently and 5600x is the last AM4 socket and AMD have an upcoming 7000 series so 5600x might get old, should I wait?
Please suggest which build from below (Indian prices) will be a better option for future proof with a GPU upgrade later for mid/high-level gaming and multitasking. Open to any suggestion here.

Part	Price $		Part	Price $
Ryzen 5 5600X	300		i5 - 12400	250
ASrock steel legend b550m	155		Gigabyte B660M DS3H AX DDR4 (Wi-Fi)	140
G.Skill Ripjaws V 8GB DDR4 3200MHz x 2	80		G.Skill Ripjaws V 8GB DDR4 3200MHz x 2	80
Total	535		Total	470

Is 5600x worth extra 65$??

 

[Atom Ant]

I would say for 5600X $149, for 5800X $199 is real near these new Intel processor. Anything above is overpriced.

 

[King_V]

@digitalgriffin:

1. 12100 is 4c/8t, whereas both the 12400 and 5600x are 6c/12t
2. By the logic of "Testing Games"'s videos, the i5-12400 isn't worth it, either. But I'm not using videos comparing gaming. I'm using the review here at Tom's Hardware that put the 5600X about neck and neck with the 12400. They trade blows, and the testing includes both gaming and non-gaming.
3. "Testing Games" is being disingenuous in calling, in mid-February 2022, the 5600X a $300 chip. That was the 5600X's MSRP back in the end of 2020. Sure, it held on to that price for more than half of 2021, but there were dips in the summer and fall, and since Alder Lake was released, the CPU's price has plunged.
4. "Testing Games" is being disingenuous in calling, the 12100F a $100 chip. PCPartPicker's price history never shows it less than $110. Side note . . GamersNexus calls it "a $130 CPU"
5. Probably most importantly - OP was specifically asking for a choice between the 12400 and the 5600X.

 

[Eximo]

If Intel keep to prior form (6000 to 7000 series) we won’t see DDR4 support for 13th gen like they dropped DDR3 support on 7th gen but was supported on 6th gen.

7th gen still supported DDR3, just that the 200 series chipsets didn't have DDR3 slots. Plenty of 100 series boards that would take a 7th gen chip with DDR3L still supported just like Skylake.

Roadmap is likely to be the same. Z690 and DDR4 with a 13th gen chip, Z790 will possibly be DDR5 only.

 

[digitalgriffin]

@digitalgriffin:

1. 12100 is 4c/8t, whereas both the 12400 and 5600x are 6c/12t
2. By the logic of "Testing Games"'s videos, the i5-12400 isn't worth it, either. But I'm not using videos comparing gaming. I'm using the review here at Tom's Hardware that put the 5600X about neck and neck with the 12400. They trade blows, and the testing includes both gaming and non-gaming.
3. "Testing Games" is being disingenuous in calling, in mid-February 2022, the 5600X a $300 chip. That was the 5600X's MSRP back in the end of 2020. Sure, it held on to that price for more than half of 2021, but there were dips in the summer and fall, and since Alder Lake was released, the CPU's price has plunged.
4. "Testing Games" is being disingenuous in calling, the 12100F a $100 chip. PCPartPicker's price history never shows it less than $110. Side note . . GamersNexus calls it "a $130 CPU"
5. Probably most importantly - OP was specifically asking for a choice between the 12400 and the 5600X.

I went back and edited my post to be factually correct with a different video. You must have saw my reply before my final edit. My apologies for that. But it's still $200 (12400f) to ~$260 (5600X) give or take.

 

[King_V]

I went back and edited my post to be factually correct with a different video. You must have saw my reply before my final edit. My apologies for that. But it's still $200 (12400f) to ~$260 (5600X) give or take.

Yeah, probably simul-typing.

Fair enough at the time of the videos. But . . to some extent, MicroCenter's sales, and to a much greater extent, Alder Lake, have forced vendors to drop the price of the 5600X. At the time (2-3 weeks ago) the Intel motherboards were enough higher in price that it made the 5600X compelling.

That I got the 5600X for $190, of course, helped quite a bit.

EDIT: Actually, $160, as the price dropped further, and since it was within 30 days, Micro Center credited me the difference.

 

[Karadjgne]

What I find decent about the 5600x over the 12400 is its versatility. To be fair, reviewers run tests at stock in a vs match up. And that's the gimmick. There's really not much you can do to tweak performance on a 12400. The 5600x, thats a completely different story. It can be overclocked, undervolted, and definitely responds to changes in ram speeds and timings.

The tweaks an owner can do for zero additional cost can improve performance quite a bit, 20% isn't out of reach realistically. Just buy the right parts to begin with. That increase in efficiency and effectiveness and lowering of temp can and does change fps output.

 

[KyaraM]

What I find decent about the 5600x over the 12400 is its versatility. To be fair, reviewers run tests at stock in a vs match up. And that's the gimmick. There's really not much you can do to tweak performance on a 12400. The 5600x, thats a completely different story. It can be overclocked, undervolted, and definitely responds to changes in ram speeds and timings.

The tweaks an owner can do for zero additional cost can improve performance quite a bit, 20% isn't out of reach realistically. Just buy the right parts to begin with. That increase in efficiency and effectiveness and lowering of temp can and does change fps output.

I mean, BCLK overclocking is possible on the 12400, too, and the 5600X only reaches the 12400 level of performance with PBO enabled according to the test on this website. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12400-review
So basically overclocked. And undervolting is something Intel chips are capable of as well, I'm undervolting my 12700K after all, without issues. Thus, I'm not sure where it is more versatile?

 

[King_V]

I mean, BCLK overclocking is possible on the 12400, too, and the 5600X only reaches the 12400 level of performance with PBO enabled according to the test on this website. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i5-12400-review
So basically overclocked. And undervolting is something Intel chips are capable of as well, I'm undervolting my 12700K after all, without issues. Thus, I'm not sure where it is more versatile?

Are you talking about one specific test when you say "the test," because there are a number of tests, so your statement comes off as misleading.

 

[KyaraM]

Are you talking about one specific test when you say "the test," because there are a number of tests, so your statement comes off as misleading.

I'm obviously talking about the review I linked in my post.

 

[King_V]

I'm obviously talking about the review I linked in my post.

Which I just went through.

From the article:

There are a lot of impressive 12400 gaming stats to throw around, but some are more telling than others. For instance, the Core i5-12400 is 1.9% faster than AMD's venerable ~$299 Ryzen 5 5600X at stock settings. Overclocking both chips yields a tie

Even though the 5600X carves out some wins in some applications, at stock settings, the 12400 is 2.3% faster than the 5600X in our cumulative measure of threaded work and 6.7% faster after overclocking.

Not seeing where you got "the 5600X only reaches the 12400 level of performance with PBO enabled."

 

[Karadjgne]

PBO isn't overclocking. All PBO does is raise the power limits beyond and set stock limits. So the 65w TDP becomes 90w etc. It allows for possible boosts higher than what stock says, and Ryzen are different to Intel in that their boost algorithms are very much governed by temps and voltages. It's very easy to slightly undervolt the VID, add more efficient cooling and get somewhat higher boosts.

But even that's not the whole story. I get better cinebench scores at 4.2GHz all core, 62°C than I do at 4.4GHz all core and 83°C. So saying a 12400 with some BCLK gets x% better OC is misleading, sure the actual boost number is higher, but that's almost irrelevant when comparing amd to Intel.

There's also ram. Ryzen work best on a 1:1:1 ratio with fclock, mclock and uclock, all of which are set by ram data rate, and usually max out at 1800-1900. Combine that with lower timings, 3200/14, 3600/16 and lower secondary timings, and performance is again increased, regardless of boost clocks. Which Intel doesn't really benefit from, but some software does.

Intel and Amd are apples and oranges, they really don't take well to direct comparison, which is why pro reviews take them at stock value, with identical ram, same type motherboard etc. All to try and balance results.

But even gamersnexus admitted that results can be screwed just by what's tested. Using 4x8Gb vs 2x8Gb ram resulted in no difference for Intel, but 6-10% difference in AMD, even when all other settings were the same.

Those reviews are a tool, not Gospel. They simply say "with these parameters, this is what results we got" but ultimately it's on the user/buyer to decide which is better value, better anything.

I don't ever recommend BCLK adjustments. It is intimately tied to ram speeds, storage transmission speeds, data rates, usb/pcie stability, gpu etc. Messing with it can all to easily take a good pc and make it highly unstable.

 

[KyaraM]

Which I just went through.

From the article:




Not seeing where you got "the 5600X only reaches the 12400 level of performance with PBO enabled."

True. It doesn't quite reach the level when you "OC" the 12400, which in this article means faster RAM:

The Core i5-12400 is a locked chip, but you can overclock the memory on Z- and B-series motherboards.

So essentially all you need to do is give the 12400 fast(er) RAM to increase the margin despite PBO on the Ryzen chip. OC is overvalued anyways, it increases energy consumption disproportionately to performance.
Considering that reading around online on different places indicates that PBO gave people better results than manual or auto OC, I'm not sure if that's actually a factor here.

PBO isn't overclocking. All PBO does is raise the power limits beyond and set stock limits. So the 65w TDP becomes 90w etc. It allows for possible boosts higher than what stock says, and Ryzen are different to Intel in that their boost algorithms are very much governed by temps and voltages. It's very easy to slightly undervolt the VID, add more efficient cooling and get somewhat higher boosts.

But even that's not the whole story. I get better cinebench scores at 4.2GHz all core, 62°C than I do at 4.4GHz all core and 83°C. So saying a 12400 with some BCLK gets x% better OC is misleading, sure the actual boost number is higher, but that's almost irrelevant when comparing amd to Intel.

There's also ram. Ryzen work best on a 1:1:1 ratio with fclock, mclock and uclock, all of which are set by ram data rate, and usually max out at 1800-1900. Combine that with lower timings, 3200/14, 3600/16 and lower secondary timings, and performance is again increased, regardless of boost clocks. Which Intel doesn't really benefit from, but some software does.

Intel and Amd are apples and oranges, they really don't take well to direct comparison, which is why pro reviews take them at stock value, with identical ram, same type motherboard etc. All to try and balance results.

But even gamersnexus admitted that results can be screwed just by what's tested. Using 4x8Gb vs 2x8Gb ram resulted in no difference for Intel, but 6-10% difference in AMD, even when all other settings were the same.

Those reviews are a tool, not Gospel. They simply say "with these parameters, this is what results we got" but ultimately it's on the user/buyer to decide which is better value, better anything.

I don't ever recommend BCLK adjustments. It is intimately tied to ram speeds, storage transmission speeds, data rates, usb/pcie stability, gpu etc. Messing with it can all to easily take a good pc and make it highly unstable.

Funny you say that, considering how people here tend to look at any benchmark out there and go off about even the smallest differences. I also never stated that BCLK OC is recommendable, just that it exists. But then, the same can be said about regular OC. Not as if that's a fool proof endeavor that cannot break your chip.

 

[Karadjgne]

Funny you say that, considering how people here tend to look at any benchmark out there and go off about even the smallest differences.

I really dislike benchmarks for the most part. 'oh, Intel gets 4 more fps, it's the new king of gaming'. Load of BS. Call it what it is, basically the same thing. To me, it only matters where it stands, in what company does it hang with, not the exact numbers.

To me, the 12400 is plug and play, enable xmp and you are done messing with it. The 5600x can be tweaked half a dozen different ways, need to do some homework on ram types, speeds, kits etc. To me, that's where half the fun of OC used to be, the personal challenge. Not the benchmark numbers getting an extra 3-6%.

To me, they perform so similarly, there's no real difference. The only real differences are the total price of the platform and which is better value, better optioned, more fun to play with. etc.

 

[logainofhades]

Jay made some valid arguments, to consider, in this video regarding mature process vs something new. That imo, is the real advantage of AM4, at this point in time.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT5CxNs_uOA