Core i5-12400 with DDR4 test: Meet the fresh bestseller

Conclusion

The more efficient Alder Lake processors with TDP/PL1 35–65 W are out. We are, of course, ready, and for a perfect overview we have complete tests of the Core i5-12400, i.e. the successor of the most popular models of the past generations. You can compare this processor in all aspects not only with them, but also with the Ryzen 5 5600X . It looks like this processor will sell like hot cakes.

Conclusion

The performance of the Core i5-12400 is very similar to that of the Ryzen 5 5600X. Sometimes the Core i5 has the upper hand, sometimes the Ryzen 5, but usually the results are even, which is a rarity. The Ci5-12400 theoretically loses no more than 19 % in games (720p), but practically only 9 % (1080p) and for higher resolutions (1440p and 2160p) you don’t have to deal with the difference in gaming performance, because it’s the same. Sure, there are games for which the Ryzen 5 5600X is more worthwhile. That’s for example Microsoft Flight Simulátor (Ci5’s performance is 11–12 %), CS:GO (up to 11% disadvantage for the 12400) or F1 2020. The Intel processor has the upper hand then for example in Total War Saga: Troy (up to +9% for Ci5-12400), in Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla (in QHD +7 %) or in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, where the difference is smaller, but it’s there. In Borderlands 3, Cyberpunk 2077, DOOM Eternal or in Metre Exodus, it’s a draw.

The Ryzen 5 5600X scores with lower power draw, on average by 10 %. In Gaming performance per watt, therefore, the AMD CPU wins. The 12400, in this regard, unfortunately isn’t the 10400 (Comet Lake), which is still the most efficient processor for a gaming PC.

In a hard multi-threaded workload, the Core i5 (Alder Lake) usually beats the Ryzen 5 (Vermeer), in rendering by 10–11 %. But again, this is only at the expense of higher power draw. In Premiere Pro for video editing the results are similar the same as in DaVinci or Adobe Affter Effects, although the more nimble processor of the two is the Core i5-12400 for most tasks. When encoding video, the processors don’t owe anything to each other in performance, it’s like using a photocopier.

For Photoshop, prioritize the Ci5-12400 for maximum performance, and the lower purchase price will come in handy as well. But if efficiency is high on your priority list, feel free to change that to the R5 5600X.The differences in performance are, you already know … minimal. If there’s anywhere the Core i5-12400 loses significantly to the Ryzen 5 5600X, it’s in (de)compression, both in 7-zip and in WinRAR. “(De)encryption” performance is also more heavily skewed towards AMD.

The Core i5-12400 could clearly beat the Ryzen 5 5600X in almost everything, but not at the same power draw. In it Intel wanted to stick close to AMD, all-core frequencies end at today’s more conservative 4 GHz and you can still talk about a relatively economical processor (between 10400/F a 11400/F), of course, apart from the high 25 W off-load (but this probably only applies to stepping C0/SRL4V. If we get to H0, we will compare the power draw). That’s 3 W less than the Core i9-12900K when idle with the E cores deactivated.

Compared to the 11400(F), the 12400(F) is naturally a more powerful processor in all respects and thus more efficient overall. Cooling is also better, temperatures are even the same as Core i5-10400F with just around half the power draw. So the variant with larger chip area (with 209 mm²) probably really has solder under the IHS.

TL;DR: Intel can really be proud of the Core i5-12400 processor.It may not be able to match the power draw of the Ryzen 5600X and has worse efficiency, but it’s still very respectable. For most users, the price/performance ratio will probably be the deciding factor, which the Core i5-12400(F) has significantly better than the competing Ryzen 5. In addition, this processor is also easily cooled, and with DDR4 memory, the whole platform doesn’t cost too much either. So yes, finally a proper successor to the Ci5-10400 and a hot adept for the most volume of sales.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

Games for testing are from Jama levova

Special thanks to Blackmagic Design (for a DaVinci Resolve Studio license), Topaz Labs (for licenses for DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for Photo Studio X license)

• Contents
• Intel Core i5-12400 in detail
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Borderlands 3
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Overall gaming performance
• Gaming performance per euro
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 1/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Broadcasting (OBS a Xsplit)
• Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop a Lightroom
• Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI apps, ZPS X, …
• (De)compression
• (De)cryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• Processor power draw curve
• Average processor power draw
• Performance per watt
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperature
• Conclusion