Question i5-12600k for After Effects & Photoshop ?

Healer21

Reputable
Jul 28, 2019
77
0
4,530
0
I'm planning on building a pc with an i5-12600k
Can I run After Effects and Photoshop properly without buying a graphics card ?
Will buy one in the future, not now.
Also any good budget air cooler for the i5-12600k?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
I'd not go with a 12600k for anything. To get value from it requires an OC, which means a Z690 motherboard. You end up paying more with mobo and cooling than for a 12700 with decent B660, for generally worse performance, especially at a production level.

As for gpu, lack of one will require all rendering, encoding, compiling etc be done by the cpu instead of more normal gpu, so it's possible to do so, but means inability to do anything else simultaneously.
 
Reactions: Why_Me and Healer21

Healer21

Reputable
Jul 28, 2019
77
0
4,530
0
I'd not go with a 12600k for anything. To get value from it requires an OC, which means a Z690 motherboard. You end up paying more with mobo and cooling than for a 12700 with decent B660, for generally worse performance, especially at a production level.

As for gpu, lack of one will require all rendering, encoding, compiling etc be done by the cpu instead of more normal gpu, so it's possible to do so, but means inability to do anything else simultaneously.
12700 Without gpu will After effects be slow while editing and all.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
12700 is faster in pretty much everything compared to a 12600k, games or production. The 12600k has only one advantage, (if you want to call it an advantage) and that's the ability to OC.

Once you do OC it, you'll be up around the 12700 level in gaming, and maybe close in production, depending on the software. Some software responds well to higher clocks and IPC, some responds better to thread count.

All in all, the 12600k was semi-useless, the 12400 was almost as fast and almost as capable and the 12700 was overall better for the same cost.

Using software with a gpu render, the cpu isn't used much, so you can still do other office work or websurf with no/little delay or affects to the render since it's in the gpu. Using software with a cpu render, it can easily absorb every thread, leaving little to no room for any other use, and any attempts at such run the risk of contamination to the render.

So yes, even a 12700 can run slower in a cpu render, but it's going to take less time than a 12600k would, especially if it's a thread count type software, the extra 4 threads will make an overall difference.
 

shady28

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
385
244
19,090
8
I'm planning on building a pc with an i5-12600k
Can I run After Effects and Photoshop properly without buying a graphics card ?
Will buy one in the future, not now.
Also any good budget air cooler for the i5-12600k?
PugetBench benches Adobe apps.

You can peruse various submitted configs at the link below and see the results.

That specific app (After Effects) does not appear to rely on GPU, there are iGPU benches showing > performance that systems with 3070 and same CPU.

I searched for 12700F to filter out the 12700K, and the 12600K benchmarks submitted were beating the 12700F by about 10%.

Must be single or low thread count limited as the clock on 12600K is faster than 12700.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/benchmarks/?age=30&benchmark=&application=after+effects&specs=12700F#results-table
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Must be single or low thread count limited as the clock on 12600K is faster than 12700.
Hard to say. Both have equal E-cores, where something like that could run, depends a lot on the scheduler, if it needed the P-cores instead. A 100Hz difference in single thread speeds doesn't amount to much overall. And doesn't seem to make any use of the 12700's larger Lcache either.
 

shady28

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
385
244
19,090
8
Hard to say. Both have equal E-cores, where something like that could run, depends a lot on the scheduler, if it needed the P-cores instead. A 100Hz difference in single thread speeds doesn't amount to much overall. And doesn't seem to make any use of the 12700's larger Lcache either.
I had to think about this, since I thought 12600K had higher boost at default and turns out it does not.

Then a small epiphany.

12700 is, by default, TDP 65W. 12600K is, by default, 125W.

So if you just pop the CPU in and do no tweaking on a mid range motherboard (not the high end stuff they review with like Maximus and Apex, more like Asus Prime or Gigabyte UD and so on) - or have an OEM rig - the CPUs will stick right around their TDP.

This is probably what those results represent, they are what typical consumer users would see.

And in that setup, the 12600K will keep its max 4.9Ghz stock clocks much better than the 12700 on multi-core workloads - almost 100% of the time in fact. The 12700 will throttle down after 7 seconds to maintain 65ish watts.

So you were "mostly right" in your original post.

12700 is > 12600K if you increase the power limit of the 12700 via the BIOS or utility like Intel's XTU.
If that isn't done, then the 12600K @ 125W default is quite a bit better (>10%) in those applications than the 12700.

FWIW you can cool these at up to 150W with a cheap $25 cooler and some decent thermal paste like the Gammaxx 400V2.

This was interesting because, if someone ask 'which is faster' for a generic OEM or low end system out of the box and they're not going to tweak it at all, it would actually be the 12600K.
 
Reactions: Healer21

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS