Between yesterday and today, we saw how Intel rises from the ashes with the Alder Lake architecture and although we already warned a long time ago, its processors are now faster than AMD’s. The problem is, this has to be demonstrated with data and across the range, so “by magic” the first comparative performance data of the new and the unusual has emerged. i5-12400F, abstract? AMD has a problem …
The proposed data are quite comprehensive and enlightening, to the point that the first performance conclusions can already be drawn. The curious thing about the i5-12400F is that Intel is still keen not to unlock the mid-range and low-end processors, giving a plus with its variants more focused on players with greater purchasing power. In addition, and as we will see, between the two Alder Lake i5s there is a rather particular jump in performance.
Intel Core i5-12400F: AMD’s “coconut”
And it is that according to the data of CPU-Z, Cinebech R23 (stronghold of AMD in recent years) and consumption, it can be concluded that Intel has returned and on equal terms in terms of node has exceeded those of Lisa Su.
But before embarking on comparative data, it should be noted that we are facing a CPU that consumes only 65 watts like TDP and 117 watts in the new PL2, which Intel assimilates to PL1 since it changed the meaning of this series of processors with the MTP or maximum turbo power.
And is that the minimum frequency that this i5-12400F will reach will be 800 MHz, while the maximum frequency to a nucleus would reach up to 4.4 GHz, who and after passing the TAU get off at 3.4 GHz. The processor was used in an unspecified motherboard, as was the memory DDR5
i5-12400F: low end, better performance
Well, surprising data. Starting with CPU-Z Single Thread, we’re talking about a score of 688, where reaches its direct rival 648, which doesn’t make too much of a difference, but it’s really the first fair comparison of high performance cores (the i5-12400F does without Gracemont or E-Cores). What does it do in multi thread? Well, 5004 points for his rival’s 5,022, only 0.35% less, a technical draw.
Data repeats itself like a mantra in Cinebench R23 (1,721 against 1,540 points and ST y 11,546 against 11,306 points
Already … and consumption? Well, it’s also equal, because with 135 watts against 131 watts del Ryzen 5600X (+ 3.05%) the separan solo 4 vatios de diferencia y por lo tanto es una cifra que porcentualmente sí que es interesante, pero en la práctica no es para nada relevante neither en consumo eléctrico nor en supuesta diferencia de temperatura because of this.
If the data is confirmed, this indicates that the i5-12400F, despite being a comparatively low-end processor (and supposedly cheaper) than the Ryzen 5 5600X, is actually faster. Its direct rival, the i5-12600K, is already just playing in another league, so AMD could match in-game performance with the Ryzen 6000 or Ryzen 5000 XT with 3D V-Cache, but… what about the CPI and general performance?
