This is probably your best chance of getting it early. I'm expecting it to be out of stock very soon. Free shipping with amazon prime.
CamelCamelCamel.
And has a much cheaper platform, and is using a more mature architecture.
It’s temp on par with 5800x
You can't just straight compare temperatures of CPU's. AMD and Intel actually report internal termperatures differently.
this beats 5600x in every way… the cost, the power consume, the mobo, the ram, the temperature XD
What you smoking mate? 12600K is a great CPU but currently costs more (~$500 vs ~$400) and uses a lot more power/heat (125w vs 65w) than the 5600x.
I never smoke anything, but you can definitely burn anything with this CPU, so you plan on ddr 4 for 12gen Mobo ? cheap $20 box fan cooler and no OC needed ? purely for (selected) gaming ? go ahead mate.
@dlovep: What do you mean it burns anything? My OC 5600x runs at 31c idle and 64c full load on my open loop. Investing in DDR5 will be a waste of money for quite a while yet. If you don't believe that 12600K uses twice the power of 5600X, just google it..
@Ryballs: mate… you're reading it wrong …. LOL 12600K is never a great CPU, it's Intel lab rat for testing the P/E core in a mass production.
I happily broke up with intel several years ago. Have a lovely day everyone
weird thing to flex about
would be cool if i didnt have to overpay for z690, shit ddr5 cause we dont know the best ic yet / not matured & now i have to shill windows 11 to get any performance
Most of the performance is gained on Windows 10.
Gamers Nexus did most of their testing using Windows 10.
Just came to upvote because someone gave a neg. :)
Barely matches what AMD where able to deliver 1 year ago.
Won't matter anyway, yields are terrible on 10ESF, Intel 7, 10++ or whatever Intel feel like calling it these days…..and will be for some time. Expect the top bin's to be as rare and hens' teeth.
This cpu gives better frames than 5800x when gaming and other non render benches while consuming less power. Does not save you much on bills, but it’s getting competitive.
Cherry picked benchmarks by Intel, using an older Windows 11 build with known L3 issues with AMD CPU's
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-windows-11-patch…
"Our real-world game testing didn't find any large performance changes […] from the patches"
Doesn't seem like the Win 11 build mattered that much, and there are plenty of 3rd party reviews so that nobody needs to rely on Intel's benchmark data.
Big/Little has no use in the desktop space.
One big thing with the E cores is that they take up wayyy less die space. I agree it may not feel as elegant as just having more P cores, but if there's only enough die space (..and power/thermals) for either 10P or 8P + 8E, the latter starts making more sense. I don't think anyone's questioning whether 16P cores would have more performance if the product existed in Intel's lineup. I guess we'll see how it plays out in the desktop space over the next few years.
Theres a limit to how many cores you can fit on a ringbus architecture before latency becomes a problem. Thats why the 10900 was only 10 cores, and hasn't been repeated.
There will never be a 16P model unless Intel switches to a chiplet design, (which they kind of have with this big+little architecture)
10900 hasn't been replaced because a die shrink to the next gen node ( Intel 7) would be difficult due to some pretty fundamental issues with the Intel 7 process.
That's why the 10900 is still on 14nm, which is Intel's tried and tested go to process for the big gun CPUs.
Intel 7 is only about 4 years late (in proper shipping quantities). And as I'm told yields are still abysmal.
BTW, Super 7 is what Intel are now calling their 10nm node.
@mrhugo: They have been making 10nm mobile CPUs for more than a year, and the entire 12th gen lineup is on 10nm - which is a die shrink.
Yields seem to be good enough for an 8 core CPU at 5.3 ghz. They weren't initially, which is why they only released lower clocked mobile CPUs first. That is old news.
Not sure what you are referring to regarding yields and the 10900, poor yields don't limit the number of cores, it limits their quality.
It's well established that TSMC's 7nm is equivalent to Intel's 10nm, they are quite right to rename it, since the average buyer thinks it's inferior
3rd party reviews are out.
Won't matter anyway
It matters. Competition will also keep AMD honest. My fastest desktop system is currently AMD based. However, I want to see Intel doing better. Intel has pretty much gone all out on the Z690.
Barely matches .. 1 year
We'll just ignore the decade of AMD doldrums leading up to that huh.
yes nothing matters intel should just shutdown because mrhugo said so
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but nothing could be further from the truth.
AMD went for broke a decade ago to become fab-less. They really did turn the ship around.
Intel on the other hand has made some pretty poor plays during that time.
Their efforts to compete with ARM, their 5G modem attempts, their connectivity solutions and their long and delayed goal to 7nm (like for like), senior management changes, a new CEO this year. Just endless distractions and pretty poor attempts.
TBH, both sides offer a pretty good product, and we should be glad we have options. A decade ago it was Intel and not much else.
Gamers Nexus did a proper review.
Donot buy this, most programs don't use all these cores. Wasting energy…
Then why did you + vote this deal?
drunk
to use the extra cores you need to be running windows 11 and the new scheduler …..the new architecture isn’t optimised for windows 10, windows 10 doesn’t hav the new scheduler for the cores and according to MS will never get it.
so people moving to 12 th gen and wanting to reap the benefits of P and E core architecture also need to move to windows 11.
bigger deal will be in the laptop market to get extended battery life rather than desktop where power isn’t an issue.
Doesn't look like Windows 11 is showing that much benefit, perhaps apps will need to be update to take advantage of the E cores better.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12th-gen-core…
Which is the whole point of my dislike for big/little on a desktop CPU.
The additional complexity and Microsoft don't do great schedulers.
But it's a stepping stone. Yields will improve, so will the Intel 7 process. Once everything settles in Intel will back convincingly.
Way too expensive, this should be entry level i7 prices.
Still need to take into consideration of the whole platform cost, and the need for a decent 360 AIO to cool the power hungry beast. All the reviewers had top tier z690 motherboards with good VRMs and DDR5, which are very expensive at the moment. Will be interesting to see if it can maintain the performance level with lower tier motherboards with worse VRMs, and lower quality RAM.
Plenty of reviews available using DDR4 and low tier mobos (since most DDR4 mobos seem to be lower tier).
It's basically a 5800X in both power efficiency (so no, you don't need a 360mm AIO, lol) and multi threading performance, for nearly the same money ($480 CPU+ $350 mobo vs. $630 CPU + $180 mobo), and you get single threaded performance on par or better than a 5950X as a bonus.
It is very competitive even considering the platform cost. You can tell because the anti-Intel police felt the need to comment in droves.
I wouldn't buy one today but I imagine they'll fly off the shelves if by cyber Monday there haven't been $50-80 discounts on the 5600X and 5800X. The discounted AMD processors would be my value pick… But those discounts don't exist yet, so today, this is a deal.
On the spot. The 12900K might be an overkill, but the 12600K hits the right notes at the right price. However I would wait till what AMD has up thier sleeves that will be released 2 months down the line. They claim 10 to 15% gaming performance improvements. If thats anywhere near, there is no much benefit going intel as AMD will run much cooler.
For gaming your paying about $200 more for a few percent of performance over the 5600X which would be better put toward the GPU, chespest DDR4 Z690 boards are about $320 locally.
For productivity, this is the best value.
If they release a12400F on B660 that should be quite the deal for a gaming system, even if it only has 6 P cores.
You also have to be aware of game compatibility issues as an early adopter. I'm sure there is more beyond this list, including legacy titles that will never get a patch.
https://www.techspot.com/news/92094-intel-reveals-games-dont…
+++++++++++++…
I chose a bad time to buy my 5900x, although i would have probably blown my budget on the mobo and ram
In the same boat. 12900k is 20% better for 20% more $, seems fair.
12700k will probably destroy a 5900k in price performance though…
This is really not worth it at the moment, motherboard prices are crazy! Don't forget about AIO prices even if you choose to go DDR4. Remember these CPU are larger than most existing AIO cooling surface and do not tend to cool the 12th gen properly even with the new mounting brackets.
is there much improvements from 11th gen to 12th gen?
15-20% in most benchmarks. If you are gaming only tho, the only reason to consider 12th gen is when you have a 3080ti/3090 and you wanted that extra few frames boost.
Also check that your list of games are compatible before parting with your hard earned cash:
https://au.pcmag.com/processors/90619/intel-these-50-pc-game…
Basically i5-12600K is giving the 11th gen i9 and Ryzen 7 5800X some tough competition. Alder Lake is putting Intel 14nm++++ CPUs in its rare view mirror basically.
There is a slight catch though, use Windows 11 as some apps running in Windows 10 doesn't seem to utilise Alder Lake CPUs correctly. The reality is that a lot of tasks shouldn't be pushed to the E-cores (otherwise you see ugly Kaby Lake-ish performance). E-cores are only suited for non-important background OS tasks.
However, this is done by permitting all core boost constantly, so there is more power draw. Basically, what some motherboard makers did for 11th gen is now being considered as default.
You hit the nail on the head. PL1 = PL2.
Guess it just proves what all OEMs have been doing all along, raising the power lines to the roof out of the box.
Intel quoted power figures are just a farce. What would the benchmarks look like if comparable energy was used
i5-12600K looks fine. Yes, 5600X fans would go it uses much more power. However, look at the benchmark, i5-12600K is beating Ryzen 7 5800X in a lot of benchmarks and even with the constant boosts, it uses less power than Ryzen 7 5800X.
All those people thinking but Ryzen 3d's 15% boost will be good enough should think again. i5-12600K's performance level is Ryzen 7 5800X. We are seeing i5-12600K getting 26-61% performance boost in multi threaded apps. We now know that's the P-cores (we also know that generally we do NOT want to use the E-cores for benchmark; E-cores has their uses but mostly on low importance background tasks).
Sure, Intel had screwed up their 10nm (roughly equal to TSMC's 7nm) for far too long. But, the performance we are seeing does make sense. Yes, Intel did opt for performance instead of power efficiency.
Let's not kid ourselves here. 5600X was well liked partially because of the price. At that price range, if you can now get 5800X like performance, let's not go 5600X is still better buy "if you are just after gaming". AMD need to drop the price of 5600X. No issue for people being harsh and cynical on Intel BUT let's do the same for AMD. Zen 3 CPUs are overpriced.
We need both Intel and AMD to be competitive because when one of them dominates, we get screwed over by subpar price. Alder Lake is not quite there yet, but it is a step in the right direction.
For those people thinking about getting 5600X, at least check out the following hardware unboxed review:
5600X Defeated, Intel Core i5-12600K Review, Gaming, Applications, Power & Temps
Without AMD, we wouldn't have Intel going on an all out assault attempt. Yes, Z690 motherboard is too expensive (especially if you go DDR5). However, at least i5-12600K is an acceptable option (price wise) to reach Apple M1 Max CPU level. Sure, it uses much more power to achieve that, but we are not looking at $3000+ to build such a system.
Not saying get it (as we are looking at first gen of Intel's new architecture). If you are an AMD fan, then I would suggest wait for Zen 4 (skip the upcoming Zen 3D). Zen 4 will be 5nm process.
Keep in mind the 5600x is a year old now and can get good sales.
Having iGPU is handy though