4 ms·

It was. Now there's 12400F which offers just slightly lower performance(few percent slower) at almost half of the price. And there's 12600k which at the same pr

by terafo 5y ago

It was. Now there's 12400F which offers just slightly lower performance(few percent slower) at almost half of the price. And there's 12600k which at the same price offers slightly better performance in gaming than 5600x, but in multithreaded workloads often outperforms 5800x.

dijit 5y ago
that chip can suck down 150W of cooling (which is likely the cooling setup that benchmarks will be running with). Not going to argue semantics here, but the grandparents point was that cooling the intel chips tends to be where it falls down (thus, the real world may differ significantly), even if there are paper gains in game benchmarks. Offering a chip which takes double the cooling is just leaning into their point.
- gigel82 5y ago
  It's not just the cooling, it's power usage in general, that's how Intel moved ahead with this generation... 12600K is using 224W compared with 5600X's 134W during the same test (SuperPi stress test where 12600K scored worse at 389s vs. 5600X's 380s). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the competition is heating up again, that can only be good news for consumers. But sucking more power to deliver perf gains is totally the wrong direction for this.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Game performance, and cooling in general outside of a very specific use case, isn't affected by what the marketing department of Intel says the 10 core AVX wattage of the 12600k is being compared to what the marketing department of AMD says the 6 core AVX wattage of the 5600X is. When a single core is maxed out the real world measured difference is roughly 12 watts between the two and remember the 12600k is doing slightly more per second than the 5600X. If your gaming device of choice is a laptop that'd be interesting but both are desktop gaming CPUs. If 24/7 all core workload power efficiency is your concern I'd steer you away from either gaming optimized option. I really like what AMD has done, my last 2 desktop CPUs have been a 3900X and a 5950X, but if I were to buy a entry level gaming CPU right now the 12600k would be very interesting regardless what the all core AVX thermals look like on a stock cooler.
- terafo 5y ago
  12400f costs 180 dollars right now. 5600x costs 300 dollars. They perform similarly in gaming tasks(5600x does have larger L3 cache and in cache-sensitive professional applications it is faster). 12400f draws 117W(intel spec). You won't be running both of these CPUs with their stock coolers so, the difference in CPU cooler costs will be 20 dollars at most(if you are not opting for some kind of water cooling on mid range build, which would be insane). Heck, even if you buy CPU cooler you still end up spending less money than on 5600x with stock cooler.
jorvi 5y ago
A 12400F is slower than a 5600X in games? That's really weird because a 11400F has better performance..

by terafo 5y ago

dijit 5y ago

that chip can suck down 150W of cooling (which is likely the cooling setup that benchmarks will be running with). Not going to argue semantics here, but the grandparents point was that cooling the intel chips tends to be where it falls down (thus, the real world may differ significantly), even if there are paper gains in game benchmarks. Offering a chip which takes double the cooling is just leaning into their point.

gigel82 5y ago
It's not just the cooling, it's power usage in general, that's how Intel moved ahead with this generation... 12600K is using 224W compared with 5600X's 134W during the same test (SuperPi stress test where 12600K scored worse at 389s vs. 5600X's 380s). Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the competition is heating up again, that can only be good news for consumers. But sucking more power to deliver perf gains is totally the wrong direction for this.
zamadatix 5y ago
Game performance, and cooling in general outside of a very specific use case, isn't affected by what the marketing department of Intel says the 10 core AVX wattage of the 12600k is being compared to what the marketing department of AMD says the 6 core AVX wattage of the 5600X is. When a single core is maxed out the real world measured difference is roughly 12 watts between the two and remember the 12600k is doing slightly more per second than the 5600X. If your gaming device of choice is a laptop that'd be interesting but both are desktop gaming CPUs. If 24/7 all core workload power efficiency is your concern I'd steer you away from either gaming optimized option. I really like what AMD has done, my last 2 desktop CPUs have been a 3900X and a 5950X, but if I were to buy a entry level gaming CPU right now the 12600k would be very interesting regardless what the all core AVX thermals look like on a stock cooler.
terafo 5y ago
12400f costs 180 dollars right now. 5600x costs 300 dollars. They perform similarly in gaming tasks(5600x does have larger L3 cache and in cache-sensitive professional applications it is faster). 12400f draws 117W(intel spec). You won't be running both of these CPUs with their stock coolers so, the difference in CPU cooler costs will be 20 dollars at most(if you are not opting for some kind of water cooling on mid range build, which would be insane). Heck, even if you buy CPU cooler you still end up spending less money than on 5600x with stock cooler.

jorvi 5y ago

A 12400F is slower than a 5600X in games? That's really weird because a 11400F has better performance..