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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.

[clip]

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.
Should I spend ~$90 more for a 12600k system for a few % points in gaming? Should I spend ~$80 more for a 5600x system for a few % points in gaming? I mean, we could do this all day. We could cheapen-up the motherboards, talk about the fact that the difference with realistic mainstream GPUs (vs the 3090 used in the benches) will essentially create a tie between all of these discussed CPUs, but let's not:

PCPartPicker Part List: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/kNxd3Z

CPU: Intel Core i5-11400F 2.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($208.35 @ MemoryC)
Motherboard: ASRock B560 Steel Legend ATX LGA1200 Motherboard ($142.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team T-Create Expert 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 CL18 Memory ($59.49 @ Amazon)
Total: $410.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2021-11-13 13:44 EST-0500

The value proposition is going to get pretty obvious once we get the H-series and B-series AL boards. The mystery is the i5-12400. If it performs better than the 11400 for ~$200 it'll be a slam-dunk for mainstream gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Why_Me
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
Anyone arguing efficiency or cost should remember their arguments when the locked Alder skus come out with cheaped out components (like DDR4, low end mobos, 250w power supplies and coolers comparable to oem 1st gen core ones) in oem prebuilds that you buy at Walmart and beat high end Ryzen rigs in performance and lower end ones in price and efficiency by a mile.

Locked skus are 65w and will probably get about 90% the performance of stock K skus. They are coming and Ryzen will look like Phenom when core came out.
 
I'm arguing that the 5600x is better value for gaming than the 12600k, and I would agree, 5800x as well.

And if you don't have $2+ grand to spend on a GPU, there is 0 benefit to the i5.

Honestly the 10400/10400f is the best value right now. If the 3600 was back at the price it was mid 2020 it would be the best value.

$11400 shouldn't be over $200 bucks. 10400f is better.
 
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.
This! If gaming is all you care about then the differences between 5800x, 5600x, 12600k, 11400, and a slew of other modern CPUs is minimal unless you have a 3090 and are looking for super-high fps on a high refresh 1080p monitor.

The thing I see here is that the 12600k is easily competing in non-gaming apps with the more-expensive 5800x. That is the surprising thing here. Whenever the B and H boards arrive, it'll be no contest on price/performance. But let's hope AMD can lower those prices - I've been a big fan of the 5600x and 5800x and if they can get that price down to something competitive I'll probably buy one next year. We'll just have to see...
 
Too much overanalysis over a few fps, just buy what you can afford, and these days it's all over priced, specially GPUs it's ridiculous and a pure form of GREED from all these companies, and in the words of Tom's Hardware is "JUST BUY IT", I wouldn't doubt these guys are paid by these big corps to write these articles just to sway people over to one way or the other, team red or team blue, or team whatever, benefits whatever corp it all comes down to $$$$$$, these corps have bottomless pockets and very high greed. All this just to play a $59.99 game and that will go up in price as well soon as they stamp that Ray tracing sticker on that game.
 
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):
oHj5VtzGeaakaNMa66WLmM-970-80.png.webp


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.
No, I am looking at both. Are you going to say you'll never ever encounter workloads which will tax the CPU at 100% even if all you do is game in it? And during those times, are you going to say you'll be ok with having sub-par cooling for the CPU? Alsp, efficiency is not the same measurement as power. Having a 2KW burst that makes anything ready in 2 seconds can be ultra efficient, but you have to take that 2KW spike into account in your build. Using single metrics to prove a point is daft.

To be blunt, I am not cherry picking or doing a disservice to Intel's lead. I am choosing to look at all aspects of the CPU as objectively as I can. Do I think the 12600K is the better CPU over the 5600X and 5800X? Absolutely. Do I think it's the best choice for everyone looking for an affordable gaming system? No, I do not. As some already pointed out, the existence of the 12600K doesn't suddenly make the previous gen CPUs from both AMD and Intel disappear, but this is a comparison between Ryzen 5K and Intel 12K and as such I'll keep it within the context given.

Why can't people understand context and love reaching for straws? So annoying.
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.
I am not. 150W for PL2 is not the same as ~100W for the 5600X (mine, at full load, doesn't go over 88W; games it does 41W paired with a 6900XT). I can categorically say that because I have seen multiple reviews and not just my hands first experience with the 5600X in my HTPC and a 3800XT (51W gaming, paired with a Vega64) in my main PC. I have seen how AMD's power usage moves in most, if not all, conditions of daily usage, gaming and heavy workloads you can do realistically as a "normal" consumer (which I am not, mind you).

I have been very vocal about Intel and AMD having a close power usage from the CPU perspective when gaming since Intel's 9K gen and I've given advice to friends accordingly. In order to understand what best suits a person's needs, you must have a multi-dimensional view on the platform vs the workloads intended for it.

I'll just stop here. This is getting annoying.

Regards.
 
And if you don't have $2+ grand to spend on a GPU, there is 0 benefit to the i5.
Much higher single and against all popular believe there are still lots of games that rely on that.
Integrated igpu for an additional completely independent display, can be used for streaming/transcoding, AI workloads, gpu compute , you name it.
Using win11 the e-cores will be working as a second cpu with the os dumping everything there keeping your game from losing frames.

Might not be much but it is more than 0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwohlt
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.

I get tired of incredibly misleading headlines and people who don't bother to read a comment.
If you have to buy a 2000$ CPU to show a difference for a budget gaming CPU, there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE

The 12600k doesn't kill a 11400, let alone a Ryzen 5600
 
  • Like
Reactions: valreesio
I get tired of incredibly misleading headlines and people who don't bother to read a comment.
If you have to buy a 2000$ CPU to show a difference for a budget gaming CPU, there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE

The 12600k doesn't kill a 11400, let alone a Ryzen 5600
The 3090 was used for all those cpu's in the review. It's like that on every tech site that reviews cpu's ... because it makes it CPU DEPENDANT.
 
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.

I think what some here are saying is that those benchmarks matter little to the average user. What really matters is will my machine run my software at levels that satisfy me. In my situation, my system (which includes a Ryzen 5600X) can be bottlenecked by my GPU. But, at the moment I am satisfied with my PC's performance (even though there is room for improvement). So, I could care less what rank an Intel CPU has on someone's benchmark list. Also, If I were to upgrade my GPU to a more powerful version and it and my Ryzen CPU play all my games at the settings I want, then do the benchmarks in the article really matter? No, not in the least.
 
I think what some here are saying is that those benchmarks matter little to the average user. What really matters is will my machine run my software at levels that satisfy me. In my situation, my system (which includes a Ryzen 5600X) can be bottlenecked by my GPU. But, at the moment I am satisfied with my PC's performance (even though there is room for improvement). So, I could care less what rank an Intel CPU has on someone's benchmark list. Also, If I were to upgrade my GPU to a more powerful version and it and my Ryzen CPU play all my games at the settings I want, then do the benchmarks in the article really matter? No, not in the least.
I don't think new cpus matter that much for the same reason. A 2013 4770k can play most games quite well and most would be fine sticking with that.

Where it does matter is for people who are upgrading. Do they want to get the best bang for their buck or not? For these people Ryzen has just gone from "recommended" status to "can get, but it isn't the best and there are drawbacks status". The drawbacks are that it is suddenly on a dead end platform and about the same value new as a used setup would be.
 
....

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.

I agree. AMD brought back much needed competition. I don't like either of those companies gaining advantage over the other. We had that with Intel before Zen came.
I'll chose Intel processor if it meets my criteria, even though I support AMD. We don't need a winner. We need products suited to our needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Awev and helper800
Ryzen won't fall to Intel until Intel can match Ryzen's performance with the same or less power draw. Right now, AL doesn't come close--demands up to 240% more power than Ryzen in order to "beat" it. In the server markets, which is where the big money is, AL hasn't a chance at all--because of the obscene power draw compared to EPYC. My money is on AMD....😉 Considering that AMD has been shipping Zen3 for a year prior to Intel's AL release, Intel loses bigtime on power consumption, still (because they are still on 10nm)--and they'll be buying AMD in quantity--certainly not AL. And then...in the next 3-6 months..AMD will rock the world with what it has coming down the pike! Looks like Ryzen is just AMD getting warmed up...! Exciting times...!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kamilf and Awev
I think what some here are saying is that those benchmarks matter little to the average user. What really matters is will my machine run my software at levels that satisfy me. In my situation, my system (which includes a Ryzen 5600X) can be bottlenecked by my GPU. But, at the moment I am satisfied with my PC's performance (even though there is room for improvement). So, I could care less what rank an Intel CPU has on someone's benchmark list. Also, If I were to upgrade my GPU to a more powerful version and it and my Ryzen CPU play all my games at the settings I want, then do the benchmarks in the article really matter? No, not in the least.
If the benchmarks don't matter than they should ignore them instead of making ignorant post on here.
 
Ryzen won't fall to Intel until Intel can match Ryzen's performance with the same or less power draw. Right now, AL doesn't come close--demands up to 240% more power than Ryzen in order to "beat" it. In the server markets, which is where the big money is, AL hasn't a chance at all--because of the obscene power draw compared to EPYC. My money is on AMD....😉 Considering that AMD has been shipping Zen3 for a year prior to Intel's AL release, Intel loses bigtime on power consumption, still (because they are still on 10nm)--and they'll be buying AMD in quantity--certainly not AL. And then...in the next 3-6 months..AMD will rock the world with what it has coming down the pike! Looks like Ryzen is just AMD getting warmed up...! Exciting times...!
Nobody cares about power other than people in countries with little to no electricity or people who live in the EU ... but not a biggy seeing how EU citizens are used to getting hosed. Fact of the matter is Intel is ahead of AMD atm and better yet AMD has yet to drop the price on the 5600x.
 
Power consumption matters for cooling requirements, motherboard vrm requirements, power supply requirements, power bills, and temperatures. It can be quite important.

In the case of the 12600k vs 5600x, the difference isn't really significant enough to matter a lot, but it will be noticeable and something to consider. In the case of an 12900k versus any CPU with a rational power draw, it is more significant. 11900k can't comfortably be cooled by anything short of a several hundred dollar custom loop. A 360mm aio will still see it in the 90s, if not throttling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kamilf
I am not. 150W for PL2 is not the same as ~100W for the 5600X (mine, at full load, doesn't go over 88W; games it does 41W paired with a 6900XT). I can categorically say that because I have seen multiple reviews and not just my hands first experience with the 5600X in my HTPC and a 3800XT (51W gaming, paired with a Vega64) in my main PC. I have seen how AMD's power usage moves in most, if not all, conditions of daily usage, gaming and heavy workloads you can do realistically as a "normal" consumer (which I am not, mind you).
Power draw and power efficiency are not interchangeable terms. A CPU can draw more power than another one while still being more energy efficient. The following is an actual power trace comparing the 5600x and 12600k in Handbrake:

12th_Gen_power_trace_I5_handbrake.jpg


This is total system power draw, not just the CPU. 12600k is at about 220W, 5600x is at about 155W. Yes, the 12600 peaks at higher usage, but it finishes far earlier, and is idling at about 65W, meanwhile, the 5600X is still chugging along at 155W. Old school light bulbs were typically 60W's. No one's power bill was catastrophically affected by leaving one light bulb on all the time. So the sporadic additional 65W of system usage is not breaking anyone's power bill nor will it require significantly better cooling. Also note, the 5600x system is idling about 15W's higher than the 12600k.

In gaming, when each CPU is doing the same amount of work, there is no real difference in power usage at all. If you want to disagree, then, by all means provide a link showing the measured difference.
 
Last edited:
Power consumption matters for cooling requirements, motherboard vrm requirements, power supply requirements, power bills, and temperatures. It can be quite important.

In the case of the 12600k vs 5600x, the difference isn't really significant enough to matter a lot, but it will be noticeable and something to consider. In the case of an 12900k versus any CPU with a rational power draw, it is more significant. 11900k can't comfortably be cooled by anything short of a several hundred dollar custom loop. A 360mm aio will still see it in the 90s, if not throttling.
That's probably why OEMs will have to go with the securely lower powered Alder non K skus that not only consume less power than Ryzen, but will also be faster.
 
The 3090 was used for all those cpu's in the review. It's like that on every tech site that reviews cpu's ... because it makes it CPU DEPENDANT.

Then, CPU benches should be at 720p, plus 1080p for real-world gaming resolutions. I'm really not even sure why the 1440p results were included. 720/1080p max for CPU fps testing.

If we're trying to find the absolute limit a CPU can issue frames to a GPU, even 1080p can be limited by GPU in certain cases or even by PCIe BAR sizes.

Also, it's dependent.
 
Depends on workload. When all cores are locked to 3.6ghz, a 5950x is significantly faster than an 11900k in multi, but slower in single.
Stop changing the subject.
You were talking about the importance of low power draw in respect to "cooling requirements, motherboard vrm requirements, power supply requirements, power bills, and temperatures" regarding how Alder lake falls short and I gave a more common example than the combined DIY market why this isn't the case.
There will be plenty of locked Alder lake cpus running at a tidy, locked 65w in OEMs with 65w class components and they will be nearly as fast as their K counterparts running at stock speeds if the previous gens are any indication of what will happen with this one. Not 1/4 as fast, but closer to 90% as fast. Intel draws a lot of power near it's limit.

Non-K Alder Lake CPU Specs Published | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

Nobody asked about the 11900k.
 
Stop changing the subject.
You were talking about the importance of low power draw in respect to "cooling requirements, motherboard vrm requirements, power supply requirements, power bills, and temperatures" regarding how Alder lake falls short and I gave a more common example than the combined DIY market why this isn't the case.
There will be plenty of locked Alder lake cpus running at a tidy, locked 65w in OEMs with 65w class components and they will be nearly as fast as their K counterparts running at stock speeds if the previous gens are any indication of what will happen with this one. Not 1/4 as fast, but closer to 90% as fast. Intel draws a lot of power near it's limit.

Non-K Alder Lake CPU Specs Published | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

Nobody asked about the 11900k.
Typo, I was talking about the 12900k.

Locking the clockspeed essentially simulates a reduced power chip.

It is a good representation of the performance to expect.

12900k at 3.6ghz can give us actual number, where you are just guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
Then, CPU benches should be at 720p, plus 1080p for real-world gaming resolutions. I'm really not even sure why the 1440p results were included. 720/1080p max for CPU fps testing.

If we're trying to find the absolute limit a CPU can issue frames to a GPU, even 1080p can be limited by GPU in certain cases or even by PCIe BAR sizes.

Also, it's dependent.
It's the same on all major tech sites ... 720, 1080, 1440 and 4k. That's how it rolls.