Intel Core i5-12600K outperforms AMD Ryzen 5 5600X in CPU-Z Benchmark by Huge Margin
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i5-12600K outperforms AMD Ryzen 5 5600X in CPU-Z Benchmark by Huge Margin on our message forum
jose2016
The war is coming ( i12 vs ryzen4 / 3+) don't panic.
kapu
I wonder how it translates to gaming performance. its 10 core cpu vs 6 core CPU , if it wouldn't eat it by huge margin it would be complete disaster.
Following months will be interesting.
Valken
Do we know if the low power cores are actually ACTIVE when the high power cores are maxed out? Just curious if it is an IF THEN situation or ALL cores can be enabled to handle more work loads? OS on low power core while games or high power apps on high power cores might be a good thing instead of HT or SMT.
Inquisitor
2nd Paragraph, 2nd Sentence, should read Windows 11?
mackintosh
I'm going to take this as a hint that there's substance to these leaks.
kapu
As far we know , when 100% load all cores are pushed to max ( Thus very high multiscore). As of now we can't tell what numbers would look like : 6c big alder vs 6c Zen3.
mackintosh
I'm having a tough time imagining a 20% increase in IPC won't translate into gaming performance. Especially in CPU bound titles. There was a huge gap between the 5800X and the 3800X in CPU sensitive titles. I don't remember the benchmarks off the top of my head, but at 1080p it was something like a 40% increase in CS:GO, almost 30% in SoTR. These gains were off a roughly ~17% in IPC. If these leaks are true, and at this point I don't think Hilbert would be posting them if they weren't right on the money - ADL will destroy Zen 3 in these titles.
kapu
The gains were not only from IPC but memory and cache sub systems which we know games love.
alanm
6 cores is still the sweet spot in gaming. The 12600k new arch, IPC is what will put it ahead in gaming vs 5600x, not no. of cores.
schmidtbag
As I've been saying over and over again (but nobody seems to believe), the small/efficient cores aren't useless. So, to say that a 10-core CPU heavily outperforms a 6-core is kind of like saying water is wet.
Except most games hardly take advantage of 8 threads, so even if Intel removed 2 performance cores, it probably wouldn't perform much worse in games.
cucaulay malkin
for budget builds
11400f was available for 170eur,it's closer to 200 now but that is still a massive price raise to charge 300usd for a six core
as much as I think rkl is a wasteful launch,I'm not gonna recommend a 300eur six core over a 190eur one,even if it does beat 5800x.
also,buying adl-s involves buying ddr5 at launch prices when 4600 c19 ddr4 kits sell for 100eur.
https://geizhals.de/g-skill-ripjaws-v-schwarz-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-4600c19d-16gvke-a2523647.html
https://geizhals.de/g-skill-ripjaws-v-schwarz-dimm-kit-16gb-f4-4800c19d-16gvkc-a2528196.html
Alessio1989
so cpu-z is now reliable again as benchmark? no more nerfs?
cucaulay malkin
when was a point based system ever reflective of real world performance
ever
Srsbsns
I bet this is an exceeding TDP situation where the smaller cores are turned on even while the larger cores are maxed out. Its going to be interesting to see what benchmark/power shenanigans are going to go on here. See the Oneplus 9 pro fiasco where benchmarks showed crazy performance because they were white listed to move certain processes to certain sized cores but real life didnt reflect.
This is speculation based on nothing but you got to ask how its going to decided when it uses smaller cores vs larger ones.
schmidtbag
Not necessarily for budget builds, but if all you're going to do is nothing but play games then 6c/12t is currently all you need. If you're not streaming or doing a bunch of other crap in the background, spending more isn't going to yield better results.
cucaulay malkin
yes
you need a 6c/12t,that is the basics.
I'm glad you agree that basic things can't cost premium.
Embra
6 cores are fine for right now. I would recommend 8 cores if I were buy a cpu now and going forward.
The smaller cores do offer benefit, but intel is using them more for power management I think.
schmidtbag
Then what's the point of establishing "for budget builds"? To be a budget build means you're cutting corners. You're not cutting corners when you're already getting the most ideal results. To not buy something excessive doesn't mean "budget", it's just being practical. Getting a 4c/8t CPU for modern gaming would be a budget build.
That's like building a house and calling it a budget build because you're putting on a roof with asphalt shingles instead of slate - the house needs a roof regardless, so you're not "on a budget" just because you didn't spend extra on something you don't need. Building a roof on a budget would be made of wood and tarps.
Agonist
My 5600x scores 683 single, 5339 multi @4.9
Why are we surprised a year later intel beats it?
illrigger
Obviously from the benchmarks we have been seeing they can be all active at once. That doesn't mean it's going to be the case in the real world, though. A benchmark like this just throws a max load on whatever it can find, but you don't want to do that with most processor loads. For example, in a generic game you wouldn't want some of your CPU threads running at a different IPC than others, it would cause all kinds of stutter. You can already see this sort of thing happening with 3D rendering; you can use both the CPU and GPU to do rendering loads, but if you do so simultaneously it actually slows things down because the GPU ends up waiting for the CPU to complete its threads before it can get it's next workload.
Eventually we will probably see apps that are written to separate their workloads so all cores can be effectively used simultaneously, but it's very early days so that's going to be a while. We don't even know if this is the way things will go in the long term; it actually makes a lot more sense to have the efficiency cores be ARM rather than x86, and it's certainly possible for an OS to handle scheduling two instruction sets.
