The Intel Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K Review: High Performance For the Mid-Rangeby Gavin Bonshor on March 29, 2022 8:00 AM EST
Since Intel announced and launched its 12th Gen Core series of CPUs in to the market, we've reviewed both the flagship Core i9-12900K, as well as the entry-level (but still very capable) Core i3-12300 processors. Today, we're looking at the middle of the stack, with the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K both taking center stage.
Ever since AMD launched its Zen 3 architecture and its Ryzen 5000 series for desktop, Intel has been playing catch up in both performance and pricing. Intel's hybrid Alder Lake design is its second attempt (Rocket Lake) to dethrone Ryzen 5000 as the go-to processor for consumers building a high-end desktop system for gaming, content creation, and everything in between. It's time to see if the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K can finally level the playing field, if not outright give Intel an advantage in the always popular mid-range and enthusiast markets.
Below is a list of our detailed Intel Alder Lake and Z690 coverage:
- The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity
- The Intel Core i3-12300 Review: Quad-Core Alder Lake Shines
- Intel Architecture Day 2021: Alder Lake, Golden Cove, and Gracemont Detailed
- Intel Announces 12th Gen Core Alder Lake: 22 New Desktop-S CPUs, 8 New Laptop-H CPUs
- The Intel Z690 Motherboard Overview (DDR5): Over 50+ New Models
- The Intel Z690 Motherboard Overview (DDR4): Over 30+ New Models
As a quick recap, we've covered Alder Lake's dual architectural hybrid design in our Core i9-12900K review, including the differences between the P (performance) and E (efficiency cores). The P-cores are based on Intel's high-performing Golden Cove architecture, which provides solid single-threaded performance. Meanwhile, the Gracemont-based E-cores, although lower-performing on their own, are smaller and draw much less power, allowing Intel to pack them in to benefit multi-threaded workloads without blowing the chips' power and thermal budgets.
Intel 12th Gen Core i7 and Core i5 Series: For The Mid-Range & Enthusiasts
At the beginning of 2022, Intel unveiled 22 new Alder Lake Desktop-S processors to the market, with the K-series processors such as the Core i9-12900K, Core i7-12700K, and Core i5-12600K having been made available back in November 2021. Looking at Intel's 12th Gen Core i7 lineup, there are five SKUs in total, all of which are variants of the 12700 offering the same 8 P-cores and 4 E-cores at different clockspeeds and TDPs. Leading the group are the Core i7-12700K and i7-12700KF, which come with an unlocked multiplier and can be overclocked when used with a Z690 motherboard.
The Core i7-12700 is a base model with no overclocking support, while the Core i7-12700F is the same as the base model without the integrated Xe Iris graphics. The last of the Core i7 models is the i7-12700T, which has a lower base TDP of 35 W, with a turbo TDP of 180 W and a P-Core turbo of 4.7 GHz primarily designed for low powered systems.
|Intel 12th Gen Core, Alder Lake|
Moving onto the 12th gen Core i5 series, there's a total of nine SKUs, which is a large stack for the mid-range market. Prices range from $289 for the top SKU, the Core i5-12600K with an unlocked multiplier and full overclocking support, and the Core i5-12600KF ($264), which is the exact specification minus Intel's Xe integrated graphics.
Out of all of Intel's 12th Gen Core i5 series parts, the Core i5-12600K and i5-12600KF are the only two chips to include both P-Core (Golden Cove) E-Core (Gracemont) hybrid cores. They both feature six P-cores four E-cores, for a total of 16-threads. The rest of the Core i5 stack for Alder Lake includes only six P-cores based on Intel's Golden Cove architecture, foregoing the E-cores entirely.
There are three 'base' models of the Core i5, including the i5-12600, i5-12500, and i5-12400, with differences only in base frequency and turbo frequencies (and price), with just $31 separating them in 1K unit pricing. Intel also has three T series variants, including the Core i5-12600T, the i5-12500T, and i5-12400T, all with a base TDP of 35 W and a turbo TDP of 117 W. There's also an odd one out, the Core i5-12400F, which is the same specifications as the Core i5-12400 base model, but without integrated graphics.
Intel Laminar RM1 Stock CPU Cooler for non-K Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 processors
As we highlighted in our Core i3-12300 review, Intel has also refreshed its 'stock' coolers for the first time in what feels like an age. Accompanying all of Intel's 12th Gen Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 processors (not the K/KF SKUs) is the Intel Laminar RM1 stock CPU cooler, which has a revamped design over previous iterations of its stock cooler. The Laminar RM1 is constructed of a copper base with aluminum fins and is designed to support up to and including 65 W TDP processors.
The Intel Core i7-12700K & Core i5-12600K: Market Positioning and the Competition
For the first time since AMD released its Zen 3 based Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors, Intel has undoubtedly been playing catch up. Its 11th Gen Core (Rocket Lake) architecture bridged the gap somewhat, but as seen in our initial review of Alder Lake via our Core i9-12900K review, only with their latest generation of chips has Intel been able to leap-frog ahead of AMD at the top of the desktop CPU market.
Looking at where the 12th Gen Core i7-12700K slots in, it has 8+4 (12) cores for 20 threads, and as such, it competes against the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which has 12-Zen 3 cores and 24 threads. Especially following some very recent tightening of the market for AMD chips, the Core i7-12700K has become a much better deal on paper with a current selling price at Amazon of $400 versus the $480 that the Ryzen 9 5900X currently costs.
Intel Core i5-12600K (left) and Core i7-12700K (right) CPU-Z screenshots
The Core i5-12600K is slightly different, as it has two main rivals on the market, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with 8 cores and 16 threads for $390, and the Ryzen 5 5600X, which can be purchased at Amazon for $229 at present. In contrast, the Core i5-12600K has a hybrid 8+4 (12) core design for 16 threads, and it fits in between both of these in the market with a current selling price at Amazon of $279.
Despite many design differences between the aforementioned chips, including core count, thread count, architecture, and core structure, the only differences many are likely to care about are the performance and the price. Earlier this month AMD cut pricing on virtually all of its Ryzen 5000 line-up, which made things much more competitive when comparing Intel's 12th Gen Core MSRP versus AMD's Ryzen 5000's initial launch MSRP. However a very recent bounce in AMD chip prices has started to undo this.
Another variable to consider in this market segment is AMD's new Ryzen 7 5800X3D, with 3D V-Cache, which targets gamers, 8-cores, 16-threads, but it isn't overclockable. AMD intends to launch it on April 20th, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D will launch with an MSRP of $449. This roughly coincides in terms of pricing with its Ryzen 9 5900X, and is $50 more expensive than the Core i7-12700K, which benefits from more cores and faster cores...and it's overclockable.
Test Bed and Setup
Although there were some problems initially with the Intel Thread Director when using Windows 10 at the launch of Alder Lake, any core scheduling issues are entirely negated by using the latest Windows 11 operating system. The Intel Thread Director works in tandem with Alder Lake to assign the right P-cores and E-cores to different tasks based on the complexity and severity of the workload. We are also testing the Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600K with DDR5 memory at JEDEC specifications (DDR5-4800 CL40). We are also using Windows 11, which we are using now for CPU and motherboard reviews as we advance into the rest of 2022 and beyond.
For our testing, we are using the following:
|Alder Lake Test System (DDR5)|
|CPU||Core i5-12600K ($289)
6+4 Cores, 16 Threads
125W Base, 150W Turbo
Core i7-12700K ($409)
8+4 Cores, 20 Threads
125 W Base, 190 W Turbo
|Motherboard||MSI Z690 Carbon WI-FI|
|Cooling||MSI Coreliquid 360mm AIO|
|Storage||Crucial MX300 1TB|
|Power Supply||Corsair HX850|
|GPUs||NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti, Driver 496.49|
|Operating Systems||Windows 11 Up to Date|
All other chips for comparison were run as tests listed in our benchmark database, Bench, on Windows 10.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
mode_13h - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link> looking at my own decompiled code
This is a bad way to judge performance. You should use profiling tools like VTune to know how much runtime is spent in the FP-heavy code, because that's what counts.
> I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.
I'm sure it depends a lot on the type of game and the game engine being used.
Dolda2000 - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - linkWell, certainly, running objdump was just easier in order to type up a comment, but looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical run certainly also doesn't reveal a single FP-heavy function at the top of the heatmap.
mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link> looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical run
You mean operf?
When profiling optimized code with any tool, you obviously want to keep in mind that inlining can cause some functions either to vanish or seem to have a lot less footprint than they actually do.
Spunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link"Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer."
False. Thuban hit a hard clock limit and it was never very competitive with Core.
If you're going to blame AMD for Intel's abuse of their dominant position because AMD didn't compete, you kinda have to blame Intel for staving AMD of cash when they had better designs, leading to the abd decisions that resulted in Bulldozer...
Qasar - Friday, April 1, 2022 - linki have seen comments from some that if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores, for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.
eek2121 - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - linkYou have 'seen' correctly. If Intel had kept innovating, AMD would not exist right now. They didn't, so AMD not only exists, but is stealing their breakfast and lunch money. Intel can only keep losing until they address the biggest elephant in the room: efficiency. Using 241W to beat a CPU that consumes half the power isn't efficient.
Qasar - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - linkeek2121, sure we " could " say that now, but in the end, NO one knows 100% for sure. i have seen some very heated debates on this as well. one person even said, intel did this, just so it wouldnt put amd out of business. yea right, since when has intel ever done anything for the benefit of others.
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - linkEh nonsense. AMD kept itself alive by pushing console APUs and even if Intel would’ve stayed ahead they could’ve made money with CPUs on desktop anyway.
mode_13h - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link> if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores,
> for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.
I really wanted the FTC to break up Intel, forcing it to spin out its fabs. The FTC has done things like this, in the past, but not recently. Judging by how competitive the CPU market became when TSMC caught up with Intel, I think the whole industry would've benefited.
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link@mode_13th
If Intel were to spin out or off fabs they're different approaches, the fabs (as some financial analysts illogically proposed as financial analysis, more like shills for some institutional investment think seller houses like vultures) Intel would collapse under the weight of its own cost structure built around those fabs, a 30 year monopoly cost structure is difficult to fuel when chopped off from its multiple heads think Hydra. Removing the kilns from design production would devastate the design and manufacturing side simultaneously in relation to the on waiting competitors. The cause is Intel structural elephantiasis, having to sustain the costs of historically a monopoly structure before fully cost optimizing, pulling out the unnecessary costs, tied to that x2 to x3 processor production volume over annual computer 'real time demanded volume' to pay for Moore's Law. AND now 2.5 full node cycles across so said 5 nodes (its really 2.5) in 4 years its going to be interesting to watch from an enterprise cost : price / margin perspective.
Spinning out the fabs would be too great for Intel as an enterprise, less fabrication, and the Intel house of cards, the current structure on its maintenance cost weight, would collapse. The place would really have to be gutted, the variable cost of operations meaning people especially on the operations management side would have to be well cost back.
I'm for IFS and for Intel foundry on every attempt. Attempting to cost optimize overall enterprise structure reconfiguring for 'real time demand. Producing for real time demand verse producing for x2 to x3 MPU supply over computer demand meant by Intel to pay for Rocks CapEx doubling law while simultaneously holding channels financially tied up with Intel processor surplus production 'weight'.
Spinning out presumes sale. Spinning off does not necessarily presume sale of the fabs. One spin off option it to federate the various fabs, placing each on its own balance sheet and enabling more autonomy over what type of products each decides to produce which of course is what they're good at technically, economically and in terms of profitably. Under this federated model, none would walk away from Intel Conglomerate (think ARM Holdings) model on existing processor volume none would walk away from that volume at least for the near term.
Under a federated model and decision making is already that way currently, more or less, every fab now operates on it own balance sheet opening to up every manufacturing division, and where Intel already has design divisions, to its own R&D and innovation and the capital markets. Where every fab operates under a federated model but still combines financially with the parent entity, Intel Conglomerate, think ITT, to chose what customer, Intel or others the fab works, what the fab will produce which again is what they're good at technically, economically and financially.
This federated 'conglomerate' model makes greater sense as IFS itself under the current whole enterprise structure becomes successful. It's an option as the dynamics of monolithic processor volumes morph into systems in package.