Intel Core i5-12400F vs Intel Core i5-12500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Core i5-12500 takes 22 of 25 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i5-12400F wins only 3. The most striking gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the 12500 leads by 35.4% in multi-core and 40.8% in single-core. Those are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they dwarf the margins seen elsewhere. A 40.8% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23 is not a minor edge; it is a category-level difference in rendering workloads.

Outside Cinebench, the 12500's wins are consistent but narrower. In 3DMark, the 12500 leads by 1.9% in the 16-thread test, 2.5% in the 2-thread test, 1.9% in 4-thread, 1.7% in 8-thread, and 1.9% in max-thread. The single-thread 3DMark result shows a 4.6% advantage for the 12500. PassMark tests follow a similar pattern: the 12500 wins integer math by 2.7%, floating-point math by 2.7%, data compression by 2.3%, data encryption by 3.0%, extended instructions by 1.6%, prime number finding by 4.2%, random string sorting by 2.4%, physics by 3.3%, and multithread by 2.4%. Single-thread PassMark shows a 5.3% lead for the 12500, the second-largest single-thread delta in the dataset.

The 12400F's three wins are worth noting for their inconsistency. It beats the 12500 in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 4.0%, Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.5%, and Geekbench multi-core by 1.0%. These results are odd because in the newer Cinebench R20 and R23 tests, the 12500 wins both multi-core and single-core. The R15 numbers suggest the 12400F performs better in that specific legacy workload, but the trend reverses decisively in subsequent Cinebench versions. Geekbench multi-core is the only other 12400F victory, and it is a slim 1.0% margin. In Geekbench single-core, the 12500 edges ahead by 0.3%.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the 12500 posts 19668, while the 12400F posts 19039. That is a 3.3% overall gap. Both CPUs sit at the 73rd percentile across all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the 12500 include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (0.3% higher), Intel Core i5-11600KF (0.3% lower), AMD Ryzen 5 5500 (0.4% higher), and Intel Core i5-11600K (0.6% lower). The 12400F's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0.0% delta), Intel Core 3 201E (0.1% lower), Intel Core i5-1335U (0.3% higher), and AMD EPYC 7773X (0.3% higher). The 12500's rival set is tighter, with deltas under 0.6%, while the 12400F faces rivals that are essentially equal or marginally above.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more head-to-head tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500 wins 22 of 25 tests, while the Intel Core i5-12400F wins 3.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 12500 leads by 40.8%. The second-largest is Cinebench R23 multi-core, with a 35.4% lead.

Q: Are there any tests where the 12400F is clearly better?

A: Yes, in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4.0% ahead), Cinebench R15 single-core (2.5% ahead), and Geekbench multi-core (1.0% ahead).

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The 12500 averages 19668, while the 12400F averages 19039. That is a 3.3% difference.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same performance percentile ranking?

A: Yes, both sit at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each CPU?

A: For the 12500, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 (0.3% higher average score). For the 12400F, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0.0% delta).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear preference for the Intel Core i5-12500 in most workloads, but the choice depends on what the user values. If rendering performance matters, specifically in Cinebench R23, the 12500 is the obvious pick. A 35.4% multi-core lead and a 40.8% single-core lead are not marginal; they are substantial advantages for any CPU-bound rendering task. The 12500 also dominates in PassMark math, encryption, compression, and physics tests, with deltas ranging from 1.6% to 5.3%. For users running those types of workloads, the 12500 is the stronger processor.

The 12400F is not without merit. Its Cinebench R15 wins, while isolated, show it can outperform the 12500 in that specific legacy benchmark. Its Geekbench multi-core victory, though only 1.0%, suggests it holds up well in some synthetic multi-threaded scenarios. However, those wins are inconsistent with the broader dataset. In every other multi-threaded test, the 12500 is ahead. The 12400F's average score is lower, and its nearest rival set includes mobile and server parts (Ryzen 5 7535HS, EPYC 7773X) rather than desktop equivalents, which may reflect a different performance profile.

For a builder choosing between these two, the 12500 is the safer, more capable option across nearly every measured category. The 12400F is only preferable if the user specifically targets Cinebench R15 or Geekbench multi-core, and even then the margins are small. The 12500's single-thread advantage is particularly relevant for everyday responsiveness, and the PassMark single-thread score (3666 vs 3481) confirms a 5.3% lead. No test in the dataset shows the 12400F winning by more than 4.0%, while the 12500 wins by over 35% in two tests. The verdict is straightforward: the 12500 is the higher-performance part, and the 12400F is only competitive in a narrow set of legacy benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share the same foundation: 6 cores, 12 threads, 65 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, Alder Lake architecture, Alder Lake-S codename, 10 nm process node, 163 mm² die size, 80 KB L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB L2 cache per core, 18 MB shared L3 cache, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and an active production status. Both were released on 2022-01-03 and are locked multipliers.

The differences are in clock speeds and integrated graphics. The 12500 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 12400F has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. That is a 0.50 GHz base clock advantage and a 0.20 GHz boost clock advantage for the 12500. The 12500 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the 12400F has no integrated graphics. The launch MSRP for the 12500 is $212, and the launch MSRP for the 12400F is $174. The part numbers differ: SRL5V for the 12500, and SRL4WSRL5Z for the 12400F.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are Alder Lake parts built on Intel's 10 nm process at the same foundry, with identical cache hierarchies and memory support. The architecture itself is the same, so the performance differences come from clock speeds and the presence of integrated graphics. The 12500 runs at a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 4.40 GHz). Those clock advantages translate directly into the benchmark wins, particularly in single-threaded tests where the 12500's 4.60 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge.

The 12400F lacks integrated graphics entirely, which is why the "F" suffix is present. The 12500 includes UHD Graphics 770, meaning it can output video without a discrete GPU. This does not affect CPU compute benchmarks, but it does change system requirements. Neither CPU supports ECC memory, and both are locked (no unlocked multiplier). The PCIe implementation is identical: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The memory controller is also identical, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode.

The die size is the same at 163 mm², and the cache configuration is identical across all levels. The only architectural differentiation that matters for performance is the clock speed gap. The 12500's 0.20 GHz boost advantage is small, yet it produces a 5.3% lead in PassMark single-thread and a 40.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. That suggests the benchmark results are not purely clock-driven; the Cinebench R23 numbers in particular indicate the 12500 sustains higher performance under that specific workload, possibly due to better boost behavior or power delivery.

Where Each One Wins

The 12500 wins across the broadest set of workloads. In 3DMark, it wins every sub-test: 16-thread, 2-thread, 4-thread, 8-thread, max-thread, and single-thread. In Cinebench R20 and R23, it wins both multi-core and single-core. In Geekbench, it wins single-core but loses multi-core. In PassMark, it wins all 12 sub-tests: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single-thread, and the duplicate singlethread entry. That is a clean sweep of PassMark. The 12500 also wins the average benchmark score comparison, 19668 vs 19039.

The 12400F wins only three tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, and Geekbench multi-core. These are legacy or synthetic workloads. Cinebench R15 is an older version of the Cinebench suite, and the 12400F's 4.0% lead there does not carry into R20 or R23. Geekbench multi-core is a single data point, and the 1.0% margin is within noise territory. For users running modern rendering workloads (Cinebench R20/R23), the 12500 is clearly superior. For users running older software that still relies on Cinebench R15, the 12400F has a measurable edge, but it is a narrow one.

In terms of use cases, the 12500 is the better choice for CPU-heavy tasks like rendering, encryption, compression, and mathematical computation. Its PassMark wins in integer math (61626 vs 59995) and floating-point math (48004 vs 46759) make it suitable for scientific or financial workloads. Its data encryption lead (12033 vs 11679) and data compression lead (238753 vs 233327) point to stronger performance in file archiving and security tasks. The 12500 also wins in physics simulation (1242 vs 1202), which is relevant for game physics or engineering simulations. The 12400F's only meaningful use case is legacy Cinebench R15 benchmarks and Geekbench multi-core, where it holds a slight advantage. For any modern, sustained workload, the 12500 is the superior processor.