Between yesterday and today we have witnessed how Intel has risen from its ashes with the Alder Lake architecture and although we already warned long ago, its processors are now faster than those of AMD. The problem is that this has to be demonstrated with data and across the range, so “magically” the first comparative performance data of the new and unusual has appeared. i5-12400F, the summary? AMD has a problem …
The data offered is quite complete and enlightening, to the point that the first performance conclusions can already be drawn. The most curious thing about the i5-12400F is that Intel is still bent on not unlocking the mid-range and low-end CPUs, giving a plus with its variants more focused on players with greater purchasing power. In addition and as we are going to see, between the two Alder Lake i5 there is a rather peculiar performance jump.
Intel Core i5-12400F: AMD’s “bogeyman”
And it is that according to the data in CPU-Z, Cinebech R23 (fiefdom of AMD in recent years) and consumption, it can be concluded that Intel has returned and under equal conditions in terms of node has exceeded Lisa Su’s.
But before launching into the comparative data, we must clarify that we are facing a CPU that consumes only 65 watts as TDP and 117 watts in the new PL2, which Intel equates to PL1 since it has changed the meaning in this series of processors with the MTP or Maximum Turbo Power.
And it is that the minimum frequency that this i5-12400F will achieve will be 800 MHz, while the maximum frequency to a nucleus would reach up to 4.4 GHz, which and after passing the TAU go down to 3.4 GHz. The processor has been used in an unspecified motherboard, as has the memory DDR5 and its speed, but we do know that it has been under Windows 11 and with a RX 6900 XT. What is this little guy capable of achieving?
i5-12400F: lower end, better performance
Well, some surprising data. Starting with CPU-Z Single Thread we are talking about a score of 688, where its direct rival reaches 648, which isn’t too much of a difference, but it’s really the first fair comparison of high-performance cores (the i5-12400F dispenses with Gracemont or E-Cores). What does it achieve in multi thread? Well, 5004 points for the 5022 of his rival, that is, only 0.35% less, a technical draw.
The data repeats like a mantra in Cinebench R23 (1,721 vs 1,540 points in ST and 11,546 vs 11,306 points in MT), but what about gaming, which is where it is really destined? Well, taking into account that the i9-10900K is taken as a base (100%), this i5-12400F is 1.7% faster than the aforementioned and 1.8% faster than its direct rival at AMD.
Already … and consumption? Well, it is also even, because with 135 watts vs 131 watts of the Ryzen 5600X (+ 3.05%) they are separated by only 4 watts of difference and therefore it is a figure that is interesting in percentage terms, but in practice it is not relevant at all in terms of electricity consumption or supposed temperature difference. because of that.
If the data is confirmed this makes a reference that the i5-12400F despite being a comparatively speaking lower-end CPU (and supposedly cheaper) than the Ryzen 5 5600X is actually faster. Its direct rival, the i5-12600K, just plays in another league already, so AMD could match the performance in gaming with the Ryzen 6000 or Ryzen 5000 XT with 3D V-Cache, but… What about the IPC and general performance?
