News Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen

[Admin]

We put the Core i5-12600K, Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X through a six-round fight to see which gaming chip comes out on top.

Intel Core i5-12600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen : Read more

 

[octavecode]

In my humble opinion the article is missleading.
First of Windows 11 don't like ryzen very much even after al those patches.
12600k is 10core cpu and delivers around 10% more performance in games with close to double power consumption compared to 5600x and also in my country 30eu more expensive than ryzen plus a way more expensive motherboard.
I fail to see Intel as a winner here tbh , don't get me wront intel has a new core design that is powerfull
but it's expensive and power consumption still sucks

 

[mamasan2000]

In my humble opinion the article is missleading.
First of Windows 11 don't like ryzen very much even after al those patches.
12600k is 10core cpu and delivers around 10% more performance in games with close to double power consumption compared to 5600x and also in my country 30eu more expensive than ryzen plus a way more expensive motherboard.
I fail to see Intel as a winner here tbh , don't get me wront intel has a new core design that is powerfull
but it's expensive and power consumption still sucks

Avg fps across all tests difference, 158 vs 151 = 7 fps. That is 5%. 15 fps would be 10%. Best of all, you wouldn't notice the difference unless you are running a monitoring program or benchmark to compare.
And that is at 1080p. At 1440p it is 3 fps. So 2%. That is very close to margin of error, I assume. So same performance at twice the power, I would know which one to get. Electricity isn't free.

 

[LolaGT]

In the unlocked CPU market gamers drive it almost exclusively.
Anyone above the casual gamer will not care about the power consumption numbers.
Average gamers want the fastest for the least initial investment, and any gamer that would call themselves a PC gamer will care even less, they will want the fastest option they can afford in the games they play.
Intel has won for now, at least until the next gen AMD offering.

 

[Mattzun]

A comparison like this on a 12600k or 5600x is rather useless

No one who has 2000$ (or more) to spend on a 3090 for gaming is getting either of those chips
I can see someone with that kind of money getting a 12900k for the slightly better single thread performance.

No one who has a business productivity need for multithreaded performance is going to get either of those chips.
The 12900k is an obvious choice for that as well

For more normal folks, trying to build on a budget and struggling to find any reasonably modern GPU for something around MSRP (say a 1660 to 3060), any reasonably modern CPU will be GPU limited
For these people, the sales on the 11400 and the proven, low cost motherboards and RAM are far more compelling options.

From the do you need a new CPU videos on other sites, there is no actual benefit for me upgrading my 2600x for 1440P gaming if I ever manage to buy a 3070.

 

[TerryLaze]

In my humble opinion the article is missleading.
First of Windows 11 don't like ryzen very much even after al those patches.
12600k is 10core cpu and delivers around 10% more performance in games with close to double power consumption compared to 5600x and also in my country 30eu more expensive than ryzen plus a way more expensive motherboard.
I fail to see Intel as a winner here tbh , don't get me wront intel has a new core design that is powerfull
but it's expensive and power consumption still sucks

Because the 12600k is a 6 ( +4) core and beats the 12 core 5800x...
you are not supposed to compare it with the 5600x since it beats the next higher tier in everything gaming as well as productivity and only has about a 10% higher power draw than the 5800x as well.
It has the same price as the 5600x but beats the 5800x that is $150 more expensive.

The competition for the 5600x will probably be the 12400.

 

[helper800]

In my humble opinion the article is missleading.
First of Windows 11 don't like ryzen very much even after al those patches.
12600k is 10core cpu and delivers around 10% more performance in games with close to double power consumption compared to 5600x and also in my country 30eu more expensive than ryzen plus a way more expensive motherboard.
I fail to see Intel as a winner here tbh , don't get me wront intel has a new core design that is powerfull
but it's expensive and power consumption still sucks

After going through many of the benchmarks posted everywhere these are my conclusions. Ryzen performs within margin of error between Win 10 and Win 11, and so does intel. A decent kit of DDR4 performs marginally better or worse (+-2%) than DDR5 on intel regardless of OS. This notion that AMD is worse here or better there, as well as intel, is now not the case. What we can surmise from all the benchmarks is that the 12600k-12900k are about 7-9% faster than AMD processors in games and trade blows in production task with Intel edging out in the more commonly used applications (again usually within single digit percentages).

What does this mean for gaming? Well we have seen in benchmarks that at 1080p and somewhat 1440p with a 3090 GPU Intel is marginally faster as described above. With anything less than a 3090 as a GPU or anything more than 1080p as a resolution. this gap in performance will shrink to 1-5%.

The considerations that need to be made when buying a CPU for gaming right now;

What is the price of a 12600k/f/non-k or higher versus a 5600x -5950x?

What is the availability of Z690 motherboards, and DDR5?

Are any of your games affected by the DRM bug preventing playing it? This is a thing and there is a decent sized list of games you literally cannot play on Intel's 12000 series, and even if its not their fault (it isn't) it will be something you will have to deal with if you choose the 12000 series.

Do I want to use Win 11 for correct scheduler assignment (mainly power consumption related)?

Do I want to pay to be a beta tester for Intel, DDR5 support, motherboard manufacturers, and Microsoft, or any combination of the former?

There is also the question of power efficiency. This is a bit more controversial because all of the default and non-warranty breaking juicer options Intel lets their board partners set. Generally though if you do not touch BIOS options AMD is more power efficient. You can make Intel the same efficiency-wise as AMD by changing a few options and it will only lose you about 2-3% performance.

Intel has brought some competition to the CPU market after AMD brought it back after about 9 years of misery. This is good for everyone. In fact I had hoped Intel would gap AMD by 15-20% so they would have to respond in kind. But ~8% is still good enough, just less pressure than I had hoped.

 

[spongiemaster]

Are any of your games affected by the DRM bug preventing playing it? This is a thing and there is a decent sized list of games you literally cannot play on Intel's 12000 series, and even if its not their fault (it isn't) it will be something you will have to deal with if you choose the 12000 series.

Not true. The problem is the E cores. Disabling the E cores fixes the issue. Intel released a workaround for this over a week ago, until the DRM software itself is fixed.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-offers-workaround-drm-issues

1. Power-up system and enter system BIOS setup.
2. Enable switch Legacy Game Compatibility Mode to ON (one-time only) in BIOS.
3. Save BIOS setup changes and exit.
4. Boot to OS.
5. Toggle Keyboard Scroll Lock key ON.
6. Launch affected game title.
7. Toggle Keyboard Scroll Lock key OFF after ending game title

After toggling the setting in the BIOS, having to hit the scroll lock key before and after playing certain games is really not a reason to not buy a CPU.

 

[Makaveli]

Because the 12600k is a 6 ( +4) core and beats the 12 core 5800x...
you are not supposed to compare it with the 5600x since it beats the next higher tier in everything gaming as well as productivity and only has about a 10% higher power draw than the 5800x as well.
It has the same price as the 5600x but beats the 5800x that is $150 more expensive.

The competition for the 5600x will probably be the 12400.

The 5800X is 8/16 unless that was a typo and you meant 5600X.

if you look at reviews around the web the 12600k doesn't beat the 5800X across the board in gaming. And in productivity its close depending on the app. 10 cores vs 8 cores in that matchup gives the 12600k a slight edge but not always.

 

[-Fran-]

In the price comparison the Cooler wasn't included, where it is mentioned explicitly the 5600X comes with one and you don't need the X570 chipset to run neither a 5600X or 5800X. The pricing is not a tie and goes to AMD, even if by a slim margin. Whatever you save on the main components you can put down on a better GPU. Also, less power you can get away with a cheaper PSU and get a better GPU (well, big "if").

In the features part, it's strange you talk about PCIe4 like it's a 20 year old piece of tech and DDR4 being render completely useless now. If you think it's better to use DDR5, but then don't take that into account for pricing, that's a huge misleading thing to do. If you think PCIe5 GPUs (because it's only for the GPU; NVMe uses PCIe4 links) are coming soon and they can actually make use of the extra bandwidth, then you could argue that, but I see no evidence PCIe5 is going to be a huge boost to GPUs in any way shape or form. These are just checked boxes that while "cool to have", are by no means "platform defining features". Specially when you can't even assess how much of a difference they make right now and assume they will in the future, where if you look back at history, they really don't (PCIe4 vs 5 for GPUs).

So, what gives?

Regards.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

I wouldn't say Ryzen has fallen, but that Intel is finally getting back on track, everyone knew they would eventually.

These last few years have brought massive increases in performance which wouldn't have been had if AMD were still flailing about with uncompetitive (IPC wise) processors, and the HEDT space is thriving thanks to Threadripper. But the tradeoff is that with Intel flailing consumers have seen prices increase, so with AMD finally facing actual competition again, in some form at least, and the Intel badge still carrying a lot of weight, maybe us customers will finally start seeing a price war instead of our money filling AMD's coffers.

 

[spongiemaster]

In the price comparison the Cooler wasn't included, where it is mentioned explicitly the 5600X comes with one and you don't need the X570 chipset to run neither a 5600X or 5800X. The pricing is not a tie and goes to AMD, even if by a slim margin. Whatever you save on the main components you can put down on a better GPU. Also, less power you can get away with a cheaper PSU and get a better GPU (well, big "if").

The 5600x and 12600k should not be compared at all, they are in different performance tiers. The comparison is between the 12600k and the 5800x. All the 5xxx/12xxx perform pretty much the same at 1440p and above in gaming and all have pretty much the same efficiency as well, despite what the AMD crowd likes to pretend. If all you do is game, then by all means just picked the cheapest total platform you can get and get a 5600x, you're not gaining anything worthwhile by spending more. When it comes to productivity, the 12600k just crushes the 5600x sometimes by more than 50%, even when using DDR4. So, whatever extra money is spent on a low end Z690 board is more than made up for by the additional performance. Once cheaper Intel chipsets come out, if you're building new, there is no reason to pick a 5600x over a 12600k even if AMD drops the price.

 

[Dr3ams]

"testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090"

Which costs around 2700 Euros. I have a lot of friends who are builders and/or users and none of them own a RTX 3090. What most of them do own are RX 580, RX 590, 960 GT, GTX 1050, GTX 1060 and even a RTX 2060. I'm pretty sure if you benchmarked an Intel i5-12600K against a Ryzen 5600X, using any one of those cards the subsequent bottleneck wouldn't favor Intel so much. Maybe you guys should do benchmarks with hardware most people have and/or can afford.

 

[thisisaname]

Hardly surprising that intel's new chip beats AMD's old chip, the story would be more of a surprise if they did not. When AMD brings out it's next chip I bet it is better than intel's.

 

[-Fran-]

The 5600x and 12600k should not be compared at all, they are in different performance tiers. The comparison is between the 12600k and the 5800x. All the 5xxx/12xxx perform pretty much the same at 1440p and above in gaming and all have pretty much the same efficiency as well, despite what the AMD crowd likes to pretend. If all you do is game, then by all means just picked the cheapest total platform you can get and get a 5600x, you're not gaining anything worthwhile by spending more. When it comes to productivity, the 12600k just crushes the 5600x sometimes by more than 50%, even when using DDR4. So, whatever extra money is spent on a low end Z690 board is more than made up for by the additional performance. Once cheaper Intel chipsets come out, if you're building new, there is no reason to pick a 5600x over a 12600k even if AMD drops the price.

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but it is a cold hard fact that, if you factor in "multithreading", then you have to factor in cooling and power. Reversely, no matter how much Intel fanbois want to pretend they use the same power in game (overall system is still lower with AMD platforms; specially B550 motherboards), they also claim better MT performance. You can't have both at the same time and if you choose "gaming", well, the 5-10% difference in favour of Intel needs to be contrasted to the overall platform cost as you're in a more price-sensitive range.

So, as I said, what gives?

Regards.

 

[LolaGT]

Maybe you should understand CPU benchmarking a little better.
To take the GPU out of the equation the faster it is the more relevant the CPU numbers are, this article isn't about GPU benchmarking.

Maybe you guys should do benchmarks with hardware most people have and/or can afford.

 

[larkspur]

Avg fps across all tests difference, 158 vs 151 = 7 fps. That is 5%. 15 fps would be 10%. Best of all, you wouldn't notice the difference unless you are running a monitoring program or benchmark to compare.
And that is at 1080p. At 1440p it is 3 fps. So 2%. That is very close to margin of error, I assume. So same performance at twice the power, I would know which one to get. Electricity isn't free.

I could easily make this same argument to get an i5-11400 vs the much more expensive 5600x. Only 10fps difference at 1440p and that's with a 3090... That's about 7% less fps for 33% less money. And if you use a more realistic GPU, it isn't even a competition...

I'm pretty sure if you benchmarked an Intel i5-12600K against a Ryzen 5600X, using any one of those cards the subsequent bottleneck wouldn't favor Intel so much. Maybe you guys should do benchmarks with hardware most people have and/or can afford.

Yes and when you do that the i5-11400 starts tying the much more expensive 5600x. Things get skewed even more in favor of Intel because AMD doesn't compete these days under $200 in gaming CPUs...

 

[larkspur]

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but it is a cold hard fact that, if you factor in "multithreading", then you have to factor in cooling and power. Reversely, no matter how much Intel fanbois want to pretend they use the same power in game (overall system is still lower with AMD platforms; specially B550 motherboards), they also claim better MT performance. You can't have both at the same time and if you choose "gaming", well, the 5-10% difference in favour of Intel needs to be contrasted to the overall platform cost as you're in a more price-sensitive range.

So, as I said, what gives?

Regards.

Maybe you are only paying attention to PEAK power spikes? Have you scrolled through the efficiency charts in the power section of this article? Here's one of the four (they are pretty similar):

They look great for the 12600k vs both the 5800x and the 5600x. Look at the Rocket Lake chips! Now those were inefficient! AL is leaps and bounds better than RL was and is now highly competitive with the Zen 3 chips in efficiency.

 

[spongiemaster]

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but it is a cold hard fact that, if you factor in "multithreading", then you have to factor in cooling and power. Reversely, no matter how much Intel fanbois want to pretend they use the same power in game (overall system is still lower with AMD platforms; specially B550 motherboards), they also claim better MT performance. You can't have both at the same time and if you choose "gaming", well, the 5-10% difference in favour of Intel needs to be contrasted to the overall platform cost as you're in a more price-sensitive range.

So, as I said, what gives?

Regards.

You need to look at the reviews again. Stop substituting unrestrained all core 12900k power numbers for every 12xxx chip in every scenario. The 12600k is often more efficient than Zen3, and across the board, Alder Lake platforms idle with lower power consumption than Zen 3. The overwhelming amount of time people spend on the internet and doing other lower consumption activities on their PC's, Alder Lake will be more efficient.

Edit, larkspur has already chimed in with one of many reviews on the web demonstrating real work power efficiency is pretty much the same. You don't need a military grade PSU and custom water loop to tame a 12600k.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

The 12600k does perform better and has PCIe 5 and DDR5 support. Its less efficient, but still manageable heat load. If both were the same money, I would consider the 12600k better. But they aren't the same price once you factor in platform cost. Not even close.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor | $294.00 @ Newegg
Motherboard | ASRock B550 Extreme4 ATX AM4 Motherboard | $139.99 @ Newegg
Memory | Team T-Create Expert 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory | $59.49 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $493.48
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-11-13 13:14 EST-0500 |
vs
PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i5-12600K 3.7 GHz 10-Core Processor | $299.99 @ B&H
Motherboard | MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 ATX LGA1700 Motherboard | $219.99 @ Amazon
Memory | Team T-Create Expert 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory | $59.49 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $579.47
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-11-13 13:15 EST-0500 |

Paired above is a very good B550 for AMD, and the cheapest possible LGA1700 motherboard for intel. You could save $30 or 40 more by going with something like an Asrock B550 Phantom gaming 4 which would work just as well. You couldn't save any money by getting a cheaper board for Intel.

In this case the 12600k costs a lot more, and thats with DDR4 which shrinks the performance gap some. Also that price isn't factoring in that the 12600k doesn't include a cooler where the 5600x does. However, I wouldn't reccomend using the 5600x on stock cooler, and the cooler cost would be similar for both.

If you want DDR5 to largen the performance gap some, you can get a Z690 UD DDR5 for the same price as the above board, but look at paying $100 extra for the DDR5 tax... and that's IF you can find DDR5 for sale. Its out of stock everywhere.

And the gaming gap isn't that significant either...

As I game and I don't think I would miss the few percent performance extra from the 12600k, and I'd rather have the extra money in my wallet upfront, and the lower power consumption would be a benefit to your wallet a bit too. I think if B series boards come out for LGA1700 for $75+ with a VRM that can tolerate a 12600k, I would totally reconsider. But as it sits, 5600x still wins in my book.

 

[SkyBill40]

Talk about straight up hyperbole. Uh, okay.

 

[Loadedaxe]

The only thing falling is prices. About time Intel. Now maybe AMD will price their chips where they should be. As far as which to choose?

meh, either is fine for normal people, if you are going to build on productivity, you have the need, then Intel AL is the way. For us normal people, whatever is cheapest. Currently, AMD meets that condition unless Intel gets off their butts and comes out with cheaper MB. Until then, they still have not won the TH crowd.

 

[spongiemaster]

The 12600k does perform better and has PCIe 5 and DDR5 support. Its less efficient, but still manageable heat load. If both were the same money, I would consider the 12600k better. But they aren't the same price once you factor in platform cost. Not even close.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor | $294.00 @ Newegg
Motherboard | ASRock B550 Extreme4 ATX AM4 Motherboard | $139.99 @ Newegg
Memory | Team T-Create Expert 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory | $59.49 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $493.48
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-11-13 13:14 EST-0500 |
vs
PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i5-12600K 3.7 GHz 10-Core Processor | $299.99 @ B&H
Motherboard | MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 ATX LGA1700 Motherboard | $219.99 @ Amazon
Memory | Team T-Create Expert 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory | $59.49 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total | $579.47
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-11-13 13:15 EST-0500 |

Paired above is a very good B550 for AMD, and the cheapest possible LGA1700 motherboard for intel. You could save $30 or 40 more by going with something like an Asrock B550 Phantom gaming 4 which would work just as well. You couldn't save any money by getting a cheaper board for Intel.

In this case the 12600k costs a lot more, and thats with DDR4 which shrinks the performance gap some. Also that price isn't factoring in that the 12600k doesn't include a cooler where the 5600x does. However, I wouldn't reccomend using the 5600x on stock cooler, and the cooler cost would be similar for both.

If you want DDR5 to largen the performance gap some, you can get a Z690 UD DDR5 for the same price as the above board, but look at paying $100 extra for the DDR5 tax... and that's IF you can find DDR5 for sale. Its out of stock everywhere.

And the gaming gap isn't that significant either...

As I game and I don't think I would miss the few percent performance extra from the 12600k, and I'd rather have the extra money in my wallet upfront, and the lower power consumption would be a benefit to your wallet a bit too. I think if B series boards come out for LGA1700 for $75+ with a VRM that can tolerate a 12600k, I would totally reconsider. But as it sits, 5600x still wins in my book.

Not sure why you people keep doing this. The 12600k is every bit the performance equivalent of a 5800x. Replace the 5600x above with a 5800x ($384 at Newegg) and you end up with an AMD rig totaling $583.48 and an Intel rig totaling $579.47. Where is the price advantage for AMD? Looks like a dead heat for your performance dollar. Pick which ever you want and be happy. You're not losing with either.

In conclusion, you have proven that a 5600x rig is cheaper to build than a 5800x rig. I bet that will really open some people's eyes. Stunning revelation.

 

[rtoaht]

5600x should be $180 and the 5800x should be $260 to be price competitive with Alder Lake.

 

[Why_Me]

A comparison like this on a 12600k or 5600x is rather useless

No one who has 2000$ (or more) to spend on a 3090 for gaming is getting either of those chips
I can see someone with that kind of money getting a 12900k for the slightly better single thread performance.

No one who has a business productivity need for multithreaded performance is going to get either of those chips.
The 12900k is an obvious choice for that as well

For more normal folks, trying to build on a budget and struggling to find any reasonably modern GPU for something around MSRP (say a 1660 to 3060), any reasonably modern CPU will be GPU limited
For these people, the sales on the 11400 and the proven, low cost motherboards and RAM are far more compelling options.

From the do you need a new CPU videos on other sites, there is no actual benefit for me upgrading my 2600x for 1440P gaming if I ever manage to buy a 3070.

The 3090 is used so that the test at 1080P are cpu dependant. I honestly get tired of having to explain this over and over on this site.