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

[TerryLaze]

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 complete nonsense.
The reviews you are watching use mobos with everything enabled, out-of-the-box, including mce, vtb, and anything that can increase power draw manifold without much increase in performance.

Have you ever though about how intel and mobo makers can get away with these settings without getting a return rate of 90% + ?

It's because modern CPUs can adjust all of their settings automatically and will run under safe conditions, you might not like seeing 100 degrees but it is safe and you can adjust even the target temp in your bios to keep it below that.

 

[Conahl]

It's because modern CPUs can adjust all of their settings automatically and will run under safe conditions, you might not like seeing 100 degrees but it is safe and you can adjust even the target temp in your bios to keep it below that.

OR, the mobo makers over built the boards to handle the power draw, and temps in intel chips are capable of.

 

[zodiacfml]

Fallen? The 5600x has no price reduction while the 12600k is at $320. Considering cheaper AMD boards now support 5000 series, AMD still wins by a small margin unless one needs the iGPU or more cores for rendering workloads. If Im going to get a system this month, it will be a 5600g or 5600x

 

[barryv88]

Nov 7 last year, picked up a 5800X, dropped it on a B550TUF with a 240AIO, PBO tweaked each core, undervolted and overclocked.
ECO 65W mode used from time to time when the CPU wasn't being taxed, all contributing to a whisper quiet system, barely drawing much power.
Today I look at Intel's new options and given the requirements, my 650W Gold will have to be swapped for a 800W. That's additional costs. That's additional time wasted with rebuilding/cabling this system that took ages in the first place! 🤣

I look at AMD and welcome the V-cache options as I'll double up my cores, plus get an increase in gaming performance simply by swapping out a CPU. AMD wins hands down with upgrade options, power saving and cost.

 

[Jim90]

That Intel is finally able to put a little competitive pressure on AMD on the desktop, though at some not insignificant power cost, will be welcomed by all sane individuals. Healthy competition, folks. Intel's legacy mindshare and billions still available for 'anti-competitive spending' remains an issue for AMD - check out all the usual(!) anti-AMD suspects here and further afield and Intel's relentless marketing misinformation. AMD's current Zen products and imminent 3D cache + Zen4 is offsetting that nicely. Add in RDNA3 and Lovelace and the future is going to be...interesting!

 

[lazyabum]

Remember all the comments about Xtreme PC Rig Build bragging rights. Ah, Distance memories.

 

[VforV]

Gamers with lower-resolution panels with high refresh rates will benefit more from Alder Lake's faster frame rates.

Yes, those 5 extra fps at 1080p on average are amazing speed and huge gain! Yay for intel! Lmao.

On a side note, I just ordered a Ryzen 5600x (BF deal), at wait for it.... 240 euro (VAT included). Now do the math in $$$ (minus VAT), because I'm laughing at Alder Lake prices now.

I expect, if not in December, then in January-February when Zen 3D comes, that Zen3 will drop in price for good and the 240 $/euro 5600x being only a few fps slower in 1080p than 12600k will still have the best price/perf ratio (for the entire platform) and make more sense than buying intel.

P.S. Also anyone saying that power consumption does not matter if you are a gamer is an ignorant, because not all gamers want to also buy a new PSU, every time they upgrade the CPU or GPU (also don't want to turn the PC into a furnace or electricity costs are not the same across the globe). It's actually the minority of snob gamers that don't care, the majority cares.

 

[Ellimist]

Ahhhhh fantastic back to the good old days of arguing who is better. AMD or Intel.

The best comments on here though are those advocating that at the graphics card level you would pair these CPUs with under gaming workloads you won't notice the difference.

If you are running above 1080p which steam still shows as the most common res then you have more decisions to make.

What I love most about this release is that theres actual decisions to make now. Do I go with Intel and a whole new platform, arch, OS and everything that entails? Or do I stay on tried and true AMD with possibly only one more CPU release before the platform won't have upgrade options.

Honestly intel doesn't do long term on its platform but this release is timed right that AMD doesn't have much more for AM4 either so its almost a moot point from longevity for once which is normally an AMD strongpoint that intel has managed to negate for the time being.

PCIe 5 is basically useless at this time as no graphics card can currently use the full bandwidth of PCIe 4 x16 anyway including the 3090.

DDR5 and DDR4 are basically within margin of error for intel so there is that from a cost perspective if that bothers you to move some of that extra platform cost to intels favor.

Honestly if I was building I'd roll with AMD right now. But I will say that intel peaked my interest with this release and definitely made me think about the different questions I had to answer to get there for my specific use case. Most users should be in a similar position that their actual use cases will make the decision for them which is an awesome place to be as a consumer because it means we have competition. Watching how AMD adjusts the prices officially is going to be the most interesting thing to see though. Do they go massively lower than intel to force intel to come down as well? Do they go just low enough to make up the difference in price/performance?

Overall exciting times in the CPU space again.

 

[dennphill]

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

Tom's again disappoints - poor incomplete, misleading article...(or is Paul just an Intel-boy?) Intel will go to no ends to rey and take lead...but just added cores and hugely higher power needs is not the way to beat out AMD

 

[larkspur]

Yes, those 5 extra fps at 1080p on average are amazing speed and huge gain! Yay for intel! Lmao.

On a side note, I just ordered a Ryzen 5600x (BF deal), at wait for it.... 240 euro (VAT included). Now do the math in $$$ (minus VAT), because I'm laughing at Alder Lake prices now.

I expect, if not in December, then in January-February when Zen 3D comes, that Zen3 will drop in price for good and the 240 $/euro 5600x being only a few fps slower in 1080p than 12600k will still have the best price/perf ratio (for the entire platform) and make more sense than buying intel.

P.S. Also anyone saying that power consumption does not matter if you are a gamer is an ignorant, because not all gamers want to also buy a new PSU, every time they upgrade the CPU or GPU (also don't want to turn the PC into a furnace or electricity costs are not the same across the globe). It's actually the minority of snob gamers that don't care, the majority cares.

Glad to see the price on the 5600x is going down! Hopefully the deal you got is a preview of the new norm!

As far as power consumption - The 12600k peaked at 135w for Tom's power tests. That is perfectly reasonable for the performance advantage of this CPU. Let's be real - the 5600x is a unicorn of power usage/efficiency. But as efficient as it is:

In performance testing, the $289 Core i5-12600K beat the $299 Ryzen 5 5600X in every meaningful test by large margins, with 5% faster gaming performance, 21% faster performance in single-threaded work, and 38% more performance in multi-threaded applications.

That is significantly more non-gaming performance - ignore at your own performance detriment.

If we look at the 5800x vs the 12600k in peak power they are very similar, mostly ~4w to 15w difference with the same RAM. I consider that to be insignificant on a desktop - these two processors should be able to use the same cooling options.

We already went through PCPartpicker and showed that a 12600k and a 5800x have similar total platform costs as of now. The H and B boards need to come sooner than later! When we look at the performance of the 5800x to the 12600k:

...the Alder Lake chip was 3% faster in gaming, 15% faster in single-threaded work, and 7% faster in multi-threaded productivity applications. Yes, the Ryzen 7 5800X beats the Core i5-12600K in a few threaded tasks, but by comparatively slim deltas...

Looks like the real competition is between the 12600k and the 5800x. More affordable boards from Intel and price reductions from AMD will hopefully keep this rivalry competitive.
It's looking more and more that the upcoming i5-12400 will be the main competition for the 5600x.

 

[cryoburner]

I see the decision to use DDR5 performance data with the 12600K has carried over from the review. At this time, and likely for at least the next year, pairing DDR5 with a 12600K makes zero sense. For less than what it currently costs to go with DDR5 over DDR4, one could move up from a 12600K to a 12700K, and net a larger performance gain than the differences DDR5 brings to most workloads.

And just as concerning for memory performance comparisons is that the Alder Lake setup appears to get the advantage of dual rank memory dimms, whereas the other platforms are restricted to single-rank dimms at half the capacity, which can in many cases make more of a difference to performance than the RAM's timings alone. Pairing the 12600K with DDR4 and using 32GB kits with all platforms would make for a more meaningful comparison. The performance differences would still likely be minor, but when we're considering a few percent difference to be a win or a loss, all hardware should at least be compared on equal footing, or at least as close as possible.

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 an 8-core processor. Also, it hasn't been anywhere close to $150 more expensive for quite some time. Typical sale pricing at US online retailers has continuously been under $400 for the last five months, since mid-June, and it has at times seen sales as low at $370. So around half the price difference you are suggesting. And that's just the processor itself. Factor in the currently higher platform costs for Alder Lake, and even with a DDR4 build you are looking at a similar total cost between the two builds. And a 5600X build can cost less, so it's only natural that the 12600K should perform better, especially since the Ryzen 5000 series has been on the market for more than a year at this point.

Pricing will naturally need to drop further though, as more competitive locked processors and motherboards should be coming early next year, and I would expect to see larger sales on these processors in the coming weeks, since AMD can easily sell them for significantly less while still turning a profit.

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.

While I agree that showing minimally-restricted CPU performance by running games at a low resolution on the highest-end graphics hardware can be useful to highlight small differences in performance, at that point the tests become synthetic benchmarks more than anything. They can potentially hint at performance differences in future, more demanding games years down the line, but nothing is guaranteed at that point.

In any case, this isn't a CPU review, it's an article purporting to provide a real-world comparison of performance, features and pricing, as they stand today. And in real-world scenarios, outside of relatively niche, heavily-multithreaded workloads like CPU-based video-encoding and rendering, the performance of all of these processors will tend to be indistinguishable. And while I would say AMD's pricing is in need of adjustment, the situation isn't anything dire like the clickbait title "Ryzen Has Fallen" might suggest. In general, I'm never particularly fond of these "versus" articles, as they tend to be little more than a rehash of review data, and almost always make poor decisions when simplifying the content into a table of wins and losses.

 

[RodroX]

So we already know intel is finally back at the top of the charts on many of the productivity apps and games used for benchmarking by reviewers. We know Windows 11 still bugged for all platforms (which is no surprise at all). We know Alder Lake does seems to use more power but it usually also offer more performance so its kinda balanced that way (at least for the i5 and i7). And we know that If you are building new, or upgrading for the best performance (and money is not a big problem) no one (should) deny that Alder Lake is the way to go, specially to pair it with a top tier GPU like the ones most reviewers use.
And finally most of us know that right now, if your budget is tight, the i5 11400/10400 are very awesome CPUs for gaming, at a very competitive price (actually those CPUs were also the right pick performance/price before Alder Lake too).

I wonder ... When can we expect a Comet Lake/Rocket Lake vs Alder Lake vs Zen 3 cpus gaming benchmarks with more affordable GPUs?, I mean something like 1080p/1440p with RX 570, GTX 1060, RTX 2060 (which is still "new" and in stock at some places), RTX 2070 Super, and RX 5700/5700X.

Thanks

 

[Why_Me]

Tom's again disappoints - poor incomplete, misleading article...(or is Paul just an Intel-boy?) Intel will go to no ends to rey and take lead...but just added cores and hugely higher power needs is not the way to beat out AMD

Every review on every major tech site has the 12600K mopping the floor with the 5800x. Get over it already.

 

[VforV]

Glad to see the price on the 5600x is going down! Hopefully the deal you got is a preview of the new norm!

As far as power consumption - The 12600k peaked at 135w for Tom's power tests. That is perfectly reasonable for the performance advantage of this CPU. Let's be real - the 5600x is a unicorn of power usage/efficiency. But as efficient as it is: That is significantly more non-gaming performance - ignore at your own performance detriment.

If we look at the 5800x vs the 12600k in peak power they are very similar, mostly ~4w to 15w difference with the same RAM. I consider that to be insignificant on a desktop - these two processors should be able to use the same cooling options.

We already went through PCPartpicker and showed that a 12600k and a 5800x have similar total platform costs as of now. The H and B boards need to come sooner than later! When we look at the performance of the 5800x to the 12600k: Looks like the real competition is between the 12600k and the 5800x. More affordable boards from Intel and price reductions from AMD will hopefully keep this rivalry competitive.
It's looking more and more that the upcoming i5-12400 will be the main competition for the 5600x.

I mostly agree. But 12600k is actually between 5600x and 5800x. 5600x is a little behind, but it will actually be cheaper, much cheaper.

Here's the truth about 5800x, it's tied with 12700k(f), taken from HUB:

I see the decision to use DDR5 performance data with the 12600K has carried over from the review. At this time, and likely for at least the next year, pairing DDR5 with a 12600K makes zero sense. For less than what it currently costs to go with DDR5 over DDR4, one could move up from a 12600K to a 12700K, and net a larger performance gain than the differences DDR5 brings to most workloads.

And just as concerning for memory performance comparisons is that the Alder Lake setup appears to get the advantage of dual rank memory dimms, whereas the other platforms are restricted to single-rank dimms at half the capacity, which can in many cases make more of a difference to performance than the RAM's timings alone. Pairing the 12600K with DDR4 and using 32GB kits with all platforms would make for a more meaningful comparison. The performance differences would still likely be minor, but when we're considering a few percent difference to be a win or a loss, all hardware should at least be compared on equal footing, or at least as close as possible.


The 5800X is an 8-core processor. Also, it hasn't been anywhere close to $150 more expensive for quite some time. Typical sale pricing at US online retailers has continuously been under $400 for the last five months, since mid-June, and it has at times seen sales as low at $370. So around half the price difference you are suggesting. And that's just the processor itself. Factor in the currently higher platform costs for Alder Lake, and even with a DDR4 build you are looking at a similar total cost between the two builds. And a 5600X build can cost less, so it's only natural that the 12600K should perform better, especially since the Ryzen 5000 series has been on the market for more than a year at this point.

Pricing will naturally need to drop further though, as more competitive locked processors and motherboards should be coming early next year, and I would expect to see larger sales on these processors in the coming weeks, since AMD can easily sell them for significantly less while still turning a profit.


While I agree that showing minimally-restricted CPU performance by running games at a low resolution on the highest-end graphics hardware can be useful to highlight small differences in performance, at that point the tests become synthetic benchmarks more than anything. They can potentially hint at performance differences in future, more demanding games years down the line, but nothing is guaranteed at that point.

In any case, this isn't a CPU review, it's an article purporting to provide a real-world comparison of performance, features and pricing, as they stand today. And in real-world scenarios, outside of relatively niche, heavily-multithreaded workloads like CPU-based video-encoding and rendering, the performance of all of these processors will tend to be indistinguishable. And while I would say AMD's pricing is in need of adjustment, the situation isn't anything dire like the clickbait title "Ryzen Has Fallen" might suggest. In general, I'm never particularly fond of these "versus" articles, as they tend to be little more than a rehash of review data, and almost always make poor decisions when simplifying the content into a table of wins and losses.

Agreed. "Ryzen Has Fallen" is very click bait and this smells too much of at least a promo piece.

Ryzen 3 prices are dropping left and right, yet the article still states the old prices, jut to make intel look even better.

The lowest price I can buy a 5800x in my part of EU is 385 euros (VAT included) so in US should be lower and in UDS. 5600x is also lowered in price.

The price dropping on Zen3 alone will brake the "intel Alder Lake best/intel Alder Lake destroys Zen3" narative

Every review on every major tech site has the 12600K mopping the floor with the 5800x. Get over it already.

Wrong. It's not, look at the HUB video.

Yes, every shilling review is, not trusted ones.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weispOrByZ8

 

[TerryLaze]

Also, it hasn't been anywhere close to $150 more expensive for quite some time. Typical sale pricing at US online retailers has continuously been under $400 for the last five months, since mid-June, and it has at times seen sales as low at $370. So around half the price difference you are suggesting. And that's just the processor itself.

We are discussing this article and these are the prices that are listed in it.
Now if there are retailers that need to get rid of old stock that is a different matter all together, right now on pcpartpicker there are 4 retailers that are below 400 and 3 that are at or even above msrp.
Just because some people can get it cheap doesn't mean that that is the going price.
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/qtvqqs/amd-ryzen-7-5800x-38-ghz-8-core-processor-100-100000063wof

 

[TerryLaze]

I mostly agree. But 12600k is actually between 5600x and 5800x. 5600x is a little behind, but it will actually be cheaper, much cheaper.

So will be the 12400.

Here's the truth about 5800x, it's tied with 12700k(f), taken from HUB:

That could also be the AMD gpu not having enough headroom, almost every test is being done with the 3090ti because that is the fastest GPU, only hwub uses AMD gpus.

The price dropping on Zen3 alone will brake the "intel Alder Lake best/intel Alder Lake destroys Zen3" narative

It will also break AMDs bank, or at least make them earn a lot less money for some time.

 

[Why_Me]

I mostly agree. But 12600k is actually between 5600x and 5800x. 5600x is a little behind, but it will actually be cheaper, much cheaper.

Here's the truth about 5800x, it's tied with 12700k(f), taken from HUB:


Agreed. "Ryzen Has Fallen" is very click bait and this smells too much of at least a promo piece.

Ryzen 3 prices are dropping left and right, yet the article still states the old prices, jut to make intel look even better.

The lowest price I can buy a 5800x in my part of EU is 385 euros (VAT included) so in US should be lower and in UDS. 5600x is also lowered in price.

The price dropping on Zen3 alone will brake the "intel Alder Lake best/intel Alder Lake destroys Zen3" narative


Wrong. It's not, look at the HUB video.

Yes, every shilling review is, not trusted ones.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weispOrByZ8

I wouldn't trust those two clowns on Hardware Unboxed to cook my toast if my life depended on it.

 

[The_King]

Every review on every major tech site has the 12600K mopping the floor with the 5800x. Get over it already.

You are familiar with TPU? Well the 5800X is ahead of the 12600K in CPU tests by 3.6%
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...-12th-gen/images/relative-performance-cpu.png

In Games the 12600k is 3.5% faster at 1080p. Wow
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...ages/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

Is this the mop the floor you speak off? Price wise its cheaper sure but mops the floor. No!

Here is an unbiased review. Not like what you get here on TH.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHMh8sUSuM

 

[JoBalz]

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

I think in the end, the consumer is the winner as they have a choice between two powerful processors. As
far as my preference, I'm happy with my Ryzen 5 5600X at the present time, and look forward to seeing how AMD will respond with their next consumer CPU lines. I seriously doubt they're shaking in fear at the Intel offering, and if they can produce a compelling next-gen Ryzen that has more efficient power consumption, they'd be able to resume the lead.

 

[JoBalz]

Anyone above the casual gamer will not care about the power consumption numbers.

I guess those are probably the gamers whose parents are paying the electric bills for those computers running inefficent CPUs and high-end, energy hog GPUs, or the ones that have an apartment furnished only with tables holding computer equipment, monitors, and a gaming chair or two (and maybe a sofa/bed)

 

[Why_Me]

You are familiar with TPU? Well the 5800X is ahead of the 12600K in CPU tests by 3.6%
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...-12th-gen/images/relative-performance-cpu.png

In Games the 12600k is 3.5% faster at 1080p. Wow
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-cor...ages/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png

Is this the mop the floor you speak off? Price wise its cheaper sure but mops the floor. No!

Here is an unbiased review. Not like what you get here on TH.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHMh8sUSuM

Do tell ...

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/16.html

 

[TerryLaze]

Do tell ...

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/16.html

You linked the wrong page...
They use a 3080, not even ti, of course there is no headroom.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/4.html

Test Setup

• All applications, games, and processors are tested with the drivers and hardware listed below—no performance results were recycled between test systems.
• All games and applications are tested using the same version.
• All games are set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise.

Test System "Alder Lake"
Processor:	All Intel 12th Generation processors​
Motherboard:	ASUS Z690 Maximus Hero BIOS 0702​
Memory:	2x 16 GB G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6000 36-36-36-76 1T Gear 2​
Graphics:	EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 FTW3 Ultra​
Storage:	Neo Forza NFP065 1 TB M.2 NVMe SSD​
Air Cooling:	Noctua NH-U14S​
Water Cooling:	Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 mm​
Thermal Paste:	Arctic MX-5​
Power Supply:	Seasonic SS-860XP​
Software:	Windows 11 Professional 64-bit Build 10.0.22000.282 Includes AMD L3 latency fix​
Drivers:	NVIDIA GeForce 496.49 WHQL​

 

[Heat_Fan89]

I was watching a YT video that was comparing gaming performance with the 12600K, 12700k and 12900K. The 12600K held its own with the other CPU's.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The biggest thing to remember is that during gaming at high resolutions and detail levels, CPU is fairly irrelevant and will continue to be irrelevant for some time as the GPU is the bottleneck, and you see it here at the 2560x1440 tests but moreso at the 4K level, and let's be honest if you have a 3090 you're not going to play at anything less.

 

[SSGBryan]

This article was 20 minutes of my time that I will never get back. Jumping a platform means one has to take into account not only the CPU, but also everything else. As long as Intel is continuing their "socket of the month" strategy, I can't see moving back to Intel. When I upgrade, it is cheaper to just drop in a Ryzen 5900x (gaming isn't my primary use) than replace my CPU, motherboard, and system memory.

The information is accurate, but completely useless for making a buying decision. What we are being shown is absolute best case scenarios - what I could use is more realistic scenarios.