News Intel Core i5-12400 Review: Budget Gaming Supremacy

[Stardude82]

For Intel VS AMD really you can go back to the AMD Phenom II days these were good processors at a good price almost on par with the Intel offerings at the time. AMD only really dropped the ball in the FX days but yet people were still buying them even though they were just bad.

FTFY

The original Phenom chips were hot garbage. Phenom II only made sense in budget builds for all of a 9 month before Lynnfield arrived. We were all fools for not buying Bloomfield on release, really. It was a workable platform until really very recently.

 

[JamesJones44]

I would love to see the actual power draw numbers, PL1 and PL2 don't give you usage numbers, just max boost.

 

[Why_Me]

I look forward the AMD CPU price slashing. Or at least a new decent sub-$200 all around gamer chip.

I still get the feeling that H660 boards will be close to the launch prices of budget Z590 boards getting us exactly nowhere.

TSMC has a say in whether Ryzen cpu's get a price cut. That's the consequence of not having your own foundries.

 

[Zerk2012]

FTFY

The original Phenom chips were hot garbage. Phenom II only made sense in budget builds for all of a 9 month before Lynnfield arrived. We were all fools for not buying Bloomfield on release, really. It was a workable platform until really very recently.

I guess I should of been more specific on the exact models. That was a bunch of years ago but like the 965(if I remember right bunch of years) would overlock well and beat the FX 41XX

 

[hotaru251]

Hopefully Intel's aggressive strategy pushes AMD to be a bit more competitive on price going forward.

you realize only reason intel is cheap is cause they got wrecked across low/mid/high end and had to cut price to make sense to be bought?

if AMD never hit big like zen did intel would STILL be charging an arm and a leg for their chips.

ppl QQ that 300$ for 5600x is "too much" yet seem to forget thats how intels chips use to be (and you can find 5600x new for around 270..heck the 5800x can be gotten new for under 350). also forget how "kind" AMD was with allowing all 3 generation of zen to run on same socket. (if you upgrade every gen this can save you a ton)

Intel use to rob you when they had no competition. (also why they stagnated for so long as had no reason to release more cores w/o a competition as happenedwhen quad core was new and when 6/8 core were new)

AMD gave em more than they could deal with & cut costs even on future cpu's as result. (as they had the gaming niche, but lost in multithreaded stuff and they were more expensive...nobody pays more for less)

AMD had no threat from intel for zen 3 thus prices raised over zen 2.

Fun fact is neither amd nor intel care about your value wanting & if they can... they WILL take as much as they can.

That is why ppl WANT both sides to be good as it means lower prices overall which is the ONLY win for the consumer.

 

[Why_Me]

you realize only reason intel is cheap is cause they got wrecked across low/mid/high end and had to cut price to make sense to be bought?

if AMD never hit big like zen did intel would STILL be charging an arm and a leg for their chips.

ppl QQ that 300$ for 5600x is "too much" yet seem to forget thats how intels chips use to be (and you can find 5600x new for around 270..heck the 5800x can be gotten new for under 350). also forget how "kind" AMD was with allowing all 3 generation of zen to run on same socket. (if you upgrade every gen this can save you a ton)

Intel use to rob you when they had no competition. (also why they stagnated for so long as had no reason to release more cores w/o a competition as happenedwhen quad core was new and when 6/8 core were new)

AMD gave em more than they could deal with & cut costs even on future cpu's as result. (as they had the gaming niche, but lost in multithreaded stuff and they were more expensive...nobody pays more for less)

AMD had no threat from intel for zen 3 thus prices raised over zen 2.

Fun fact is neither amd nor intel care about your value wanting & if they can... they WILL take as much as they can.

That is why ppl WANT both sides to be good as it means lower prices overall which is the ONLY win for the consumer.

AMD is a hose job atm.

 

[Stardude82]

TSMC has a say in whether Ryzen cpu's get a price cut. That's the consequence of not having your own foundries.

The 5600G is most of the way there pricewise and only has a 10% smaller die. There, in principle, is space there.

 

[Stardude82]

I guess I should of been more specific on the exact models. That was a bunch of years ago but like the 965(if I remember right bunch of years) would overlock well and beat the FX 41XX

The 965 would beat the FX-83xx AND that's not even taking into the account that there were 6 core Phenom 2s!

This is more analogous to the Netburst days where AMD had clear performance supremacy for a couple years. Check it out:

A history of Intel vs. AMD desktop performance, with CPU charts galore

Intel vs. AMD is a tortoise vs. hare race—but which company is which?

arstechnica.com

 

[Stardude82]

Zen 2 chips are all but gone from retail. I guess they are a useful reference, but here they are just very odd strawmen.

 

[VforV]

AMD will respond with its 3D V-Cache processors with up to 192MB of L3 cache per chip, imparting up to 15% more gaming performance. Those chips arrive next year

You mean this year...

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Core i5-12400 / F

Estimated ~ $185 - $160

6P + 0E | 6 Cores / 12 Threads

4.4 / ~2.5 GHz

n/a

65W / 117W

DDR4-3200 / DDR5-4800

18MB

In both charts at start of article, the Base/Boost speeds are reversed.

 

[King_V]

AMD is a hose job atm.

That's a really big, and implausible, jump in logic.

 

[logainofhades]

Yeah, but when Intel was on top and charged whatever they wanted, people accused Intel for being greedy and not offering as good performance per dollar. All while praising AMD as our lord and saviour that came to save us from greedy Intel. Remember? But when AMD got on top and charged more and offered worse performance per dollar the tune became “Oh well, that’s natural when you are on top you can charge whatever you can get away with. Intel did that for years”. No accusations about AMD's greed, etc. To me that sounds like double standard. Besides AMD is no longer on top anyway. Definitely not in this market segment by a long shot. To me is obvious that AMD cannot drop prices to compete and/or are unwilling to do so - they have rather shifted their TSMC capacity-limited production to the more profitable skus (epyc, gpus). As a corporate move, a wise one.

I am not applying a double standard. It's called capitalism. I didn't like the higher prices, on either side. You have a superior product, you can charge more. Like Dewalt tools sell for way more than say Black and Decker. Dewalt gets away with it, because they have a superior product.

 

[shady28]

I am not applying a double standard. It's called capitalism. I didn't like the higher prices, on either side. You have a superior product, you can charge more. Like Dewalt tools sell for way more than say Black and Decker. Dewalt gets away with it, because they have a superior product.

I think the problem people have now with this, is that AMD has an inferior product but hasn't dropped prices. In that sense, anyone buying AMD for a new build right now is probably doing so simply out of brand loyalty.

What makes this worse is how expensive Zen 2 is. I see the 3800X going for $340. That makes no sense whatsoever when a 12600K is $299 and wipes the floor with the 3800X at literally everything. Or for that matter, a 5600X pretty much wipes the 3800X too and costs less.

So what you basically have here is blind brand loyalty inertia. And yes there are a couple of exceptions, like the 5600G for those who are not planning on getting a dGPU anytime soon and are ok with a good iGPU.

Outside of those niche cases you are basically just handing the retailer and possibly AMD your cash, for less value, and some weird idea that one corporation is evil and another is not.
Giving up money to a big corporate entity for less value out of brand loyalty is a stupid move, no matter how you slice it.

 

[logainofhades]

I think the problem people have now with this, is that AMD has an inferior product but hasn't dropped prices. In that sense, anyone buying AMD for a new build right now is probably doing so simply out of brand loyalty.

What makes this worse is how expensive Zen 2 is. I see the 3800X going for $340. That makes no sense whatsoever when a 12600K is $299 and wipes the floor with the 3800X at literally everything. Or for that matter, a 5600X pretty much wipes the 3800X too and costs less.

So what you basically have here is blind brand loyalty inertia. And yes there are a couple of exceptions, like the 5600G for those who are not planning on getting a dGPU anytime soon and are ok with a good iGPU.

Outside of those niche cases you are basically just handing the retailer and possibly AMD your cash, for less value, and some weird idea that one corporation is evil and another is not.
Giving up money to a big corporate entity for less value out of brand loyalty is a stupid move, no matter how you slice it.

Why charge less, if you are still basically selling everything you make? That makes 0 business sense, regardless of who you are. Also AMD rig, new can still make a bit of sense, at least until B660 boards show up. AMD motherboards can be had for much cheaper. Even a lowly Gigabyte B550 DS3H can handle most, if not all the Zen 3 chips, and is only a $100. Z690's are easily $200+. That savings is enough to buy a decent SSD. Then of course with GPU shortages, as 5600g, and 5700g are far better choices, than Alder lake, due to AMD having superior IGP.

 

[shady28]

Why charge less, if you are still basically selling everything you make? That makes 0 business sense, regardless of who you are. Also AMD rig, new can still make a bit of sense, at least until B660 boards show up. AMD motherboards can be had for much cheaper. Even a lowly Gigabyte B550 DS3H can handle most, if not all the Zen 3 chips, and is only a $100. Z690's are easily $200+. That savings is enough to buy a decent SSD. Then of course with GPU shortages, as 5600g, and 5700g are far better choices, than Alder lake, due to AMD having superior IGP.

Oh I'm not blaming AMD. Corporations are there to make money, in fact in the US there is this thing called fiducial responsibility which requires a CEO to maximize shareholder return. Otherwise they are literally not doing their job and can be sued.

I'm blaming the stupidity of the users.

 

[Why_Me]

That's a really big, and implausible, jump in logic.

There's a reason you rarely see AMD builds recommended in the Systems forum. Intel owns the high end and budget retail market atm.

 

[Why_Me]

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-12400f-core-i5-12th-gen/p/N82E16819118360
Intel Core i5-12400F $179.99

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/p/N82E16819113666
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $299.00

 

[logainofhades]

There's a reason you rarely see AMD builds recommended in the Systems forum. Intel owns the high end and budget retail market atm.

Yea, for new rigs, I only recommend them for those that cannot get a GPU right now, and recommend a 5600g/5700g. I do often recommend them for those on a compatible AM4 platform and looking to upgrade, though.

 

[LuxZg]

I don't care about brands, and unreal benchmarks... And as such I find it super unreal when 3090 is used at 1080p with a <200$ CPU. Not only that, reviewer himself says they tested only 4 games at higher resolution as others don't show notable differences. And those 4 tested games all push 100FPS+ at tested resolution. So all this marketing talk from both AMD/Intel and from reviewers is just to make you all upgrade.

Not to be all ranting and no content, here is a proposition. Keep testing as you do, I realize why it's done as it's done, but then add a few charts where you bench midrange CPU with midrange GPU (eg. something like 3060 or even 3050) at 1440p or 4K (whichever is playable), at maxed high settings, and show us the full non marketing BS, so if there's barely 1FPS difference - so be it!

I don't read this to get filled with more marketing speach, I read it to see what will get me best (or acceptable) performance in REAL world. And in real world people DO NOT play at 1080p with 1000$ GPU with 180$ CPU. So just one freaking proper page with something that will show us real world performance.

P.S. Same with productivity benchmarks, we get one piece of PCMark results, only one that shows big difference (artificial), yet important info like actual seconds to finish a task is usually never shown, because it all ends up between 2.2 and 2.5 seconds which is a blink and you've missed it kind of difference. But we'd still like to be informed.

 

[logainofhades]

I don't care about brands, and unreal benchmarks... And as such I find it super unreal when 3090 is used at 1080p with a <200$ CPU.

The 3090 is used to eliminate GPU bottlenecks, so you can truly see what a CPU can do. Too slow of a GPU, and you could skew the results immensely. Fastest GPU, and slower resolution is CPU benchmarking 101. Before 1440p and 4k, reviewers used 720p. This isn't some new development.

 

[-Fran-]

The 3090 is used to eliminate GPU bottlenecks, so you can truly see what a CPU can do. Too slow of a GPU, and you could skew the results immensely. Fastest GPU, and slower resolution is CPU benchmarking 101. Before 1440p and 4k, reviewers used 720p. This isn't some new development.

There is an annoying silver lining there, so ideally both should be done: removing GPU bottleneck and "normal gaming". Reason is while the CPU can be tested to gauge how long it'll last, current games are usually using past years tech, CPU-wise. Think how games are using AVX sparsely and some are not even using it still. And we're at AVX gen3. Not that it matters thaaat much, but at least from SSE3/4/4.1 to AVX there was a seizable jump in CPU performance which wasn't gauged at their time of release with all games that were available. One of the reasons why AVX512 is still interesting in one way shape or form. And the "normal gaming" is because some CPUs you won't pair with stupidly priced GPUs anyway and, now more than ever before, that needs to be taken into accunt in reviews.

Regards.

 

[logainofhades]

I don't disagree that it would be nice to see realistic combinations. Using the fastest GPU at least gives you an idea of longevity, with regards to GPU upgrades. Today's high end could be tomorrow's midrange. Like how GTX 980 and GTX 1060 6gb performance was roughly the same, and a 980ti being roughly equal to a 1070. RTX 2060 is roughly on par with a GTX 1080. In normal times, a cpu might see 2 or 3 different GPU upgrades.

 

[drewthebrave]

There is an annoying silver lining there, so ideally both should be done: removing GPU bottleneck and "normal gaming". Reason is while the CPU can be tested to gauge how long it'll last, current games are usually using past years tech, CPU-wise.

Exactly. Even modest CPUs are more than enough to run games at high resolution or high settings without significantly bottlenecking performance. This 1080p testing just helps us identify which CPU offers the best performance for our hard earned money.

Before my I finished my new 10700k build on Christmas, I was still using my i7-4930k rig that I built in 2013. The fact that my old PC kept pace with modern games remarkably well for 8 years (with some GPU & RAM upgrades along the way) is truly impressive. I expect the 10700k will easily last me another 5+ years of quality high-resolution gaming.

 

[LuxZg]

The 3090 is used to eliminate GPU bottlenecks, so you can truly see what a CPU can do. Too slow of a GPU, and you could skew the results immensely. Fastest GPU, and slower resolution is CPU benchmarking 101. Before 1440p and 4k, reviewers used 720p. This isn't some new development.

Yes, as you can see I am member of this forum since 2007, I wasn't born yesterday. But eliminating bottleneck isn't real world. Not in this way. Using SSD to eliminate bottleneck is fine. But this is getting stupid. I wasn't a fan of this principle in 2007, I'm not a fan now either. As I said, I know why it's done as it's done, but to make the picture whole, a simple set of benches with normal real world-ish setup would be really welcome