Intel Core i5-12500H vs Intel Core i9-11900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits almost evenly between these two processors: the Intel Core i9-11900F takes 12 wins, while the Intel Core i5-12500H takes 11. But the margins tell a more interesting story than the raw win count. The i9's victories are often blowouts, while the i5's wins are mostly narrow.

The most dramatic difference appears in the 3DMark threaded tests. In 3DMark 16 threads, the i9-11900F scores 7995 against 5954 for the i5-12500H, a 34.3% lead. The 8-thread test shows an even larger gap: 6018 versus 4394, a 37% advantage. The max-threads test confirms the pattern with 7961 versus 6043, a 31.7% edge. These are not subtle differences; the desktop part simply overwhelms the mobile chip in heavily threaded synthetic workloads.

The i9 also dominates in several PassMark productivity tests. Integer math shows 83718 versus 71714, a 16.7% win. Random string sorting goes 32520 versus 28099, a 15.7% margin. Extended instructions deliver 19443 versus 14965, a 29.9% gap. Data compression also favors the i9 at 280847 versus 253431, a 10.8% advantage. Prime number finding is close but still a win: 61 versus 57, a 7% edge.

The i5-12500H fights back in the Cinebench suite, where it wins every single test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5 scores 19840 against 18759 for the i9, a 5.4% lead. Single-core R23 shows 2801 versus 2648, a 5.5% margin. R20 multi-core gives the i5 8332 versus 7878, a 5.4% win, and R20 single-core is 1176 versus 1112, also 5.4%. R15 follows the same pattern: multi-core 1999 versus 1890 (5.5%) and single-core 282 versus 266 (5.7%). The mobile chip's newer architecture clearly helps in these rendering workloads.

PassMark also shows several i5 wins. Floating point math goes 52227 versus 48562, a 7% advantage. Physics scores 1018 versus 949, a 6.8% edge. Data encryption favors the i5 at 14749 versus 13636, a 7.5% margin. The single-thread PassMark tests are essentially tied: 3418 versus 3413, a 0.1% difference that technically counts as an i5 win.

Architecture Differences

These processors come from different generations and target different segments. The i9-11900F is a Rocket Lake desktop part built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the i5-12500H is an Alder Lake-H mobile chip on the 10 nm node. The process node difference is significant, as the 10 nm design allows for a denser, more efficient layout.

The core configurations differ substantially. The i9 has 8 cores and 16 threads, all based on the same architecture. The i5 has 12 cores and 16 threads, using a hybrid design that mixes performance and efficiency cores. Despite having fewer total threads, the i9's 8 cores are all high-performance cores, whereas the i5's 12 cores include efficiency cores that handle lighter workloads.

Cache layouts diverge as well. Both share 80 KB of L1 per core, but L2 differs: the i9 has 512 KB per core, while the i5 has 1.25 MB per core. L3 also favors the i5, with 18 MB shared versus 16 MB shared on the i9. The larger L2 and L3 caches on the i5 likely contribute to its Cinebench wins, as rendering workloads benefit from having more data closer to the cores.

The i9 uses a larger die at 276 mm² compared to the i5's 217 mm². The i9 supports only DDR4 memory, while the i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is listed for the i9 at 51.2 GB/s, while the i5's bandwidth is not recorded in the database. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The i5 includes integrated graphics: Iris Xe 80EU. The i9 has no integrated graphics listed, which is typical for an F-series part. Both support PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The i9 uses Intel Socket 1200, while the i5 uses Intel BGA 1744, reflecting their desktop versus mobile designs. The i9 has a 65 W TDP, while the i5 has a 45 W TDP, though the i5's hybrid architecture means its actual power draw varies by workload.

Both are locked processors with no unlocked multiplier. The i9's base clock is 2.50 GHz and boost clock is 5.20 GHz. The i5's base clock is also 2.50 GHz but its boost clock is 4.50 GHz. The i9's higher boost clock helps it win the 3DMark tests, where single-thread frequency matters alongside multi-thread scaling.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i9-11900F has an average benchmark score of 23254, while the i5-12500H scores 22625. Both sit at the 76th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the i9-11900F compare to its closest rivals?

A: The i9's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with an average score of 23277, just 0.1% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 23219, which is 0.2% lower than the i9. The Intel Core Ultra 7 266V is 0.2% lower at 23297, and the AMD EPYC 4124P is 0.4% lower at 23167.

Q: Where does the i5-12500H stand relative to its competition?

A: The i5's closest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 135U, which scores 22618, essentially identical. The Intel Core i7-1270P is 0.5% higher at 22502, and the Intel Core i5-13500H is 0.7% higher at 22468. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535U is 0.7% lower at 22791.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i5-12500H wins with a score of 19840, beating the i9-11900F's 18759 by 5.4%. This is one of 11 wins for the i5, despite the i9 taking 12 overall wins.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between these two?

A: The largest margin is in 3DMark 8 threads, where the i9-11900F leads by 37% with a score of 6018 versus 4394 for the i5-12500H. The 16-thread test is close behind at 34.3%.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory types?

A: No. The i9-11900F supports only DDR4, while the i5-12500H supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory configurations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-11900F | Intel Core i5-12500H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core 11th Gen | Core 12th Gen |

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Rocket Lake | Alder Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 217 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | Not recorded |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe 80EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | $422 | Not recorded |

The base clock is identical at 2.50 GHz for both. PCIe support is the same: Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is not supported by either. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-11900F is the clear choice for 3DMark-style workloads and general multithreaded synthetic tests. Its 34.3% lead in 16-thread 3DMark and 37% lead in 8-thread 3DMark indicate strong scaling across all cores. It also wins integer math, extended instructions, data compression, random string sorting, and prime number finding. If your work involves these kinds of compute-heavy tasks, the i9's 8 full performance cores with a 5.20 GHz boost clock deliver more raw throughput.

The i5-12500H wins every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. The margins are consistent at around 5.4% to 5.7%. This suggests the i5's hybrid core design and larger caches provide better real-world rendering performance, even though its peak boost clock is lower. The i5 also wins floating point math, physics, and data encryption, making it the better option for workloads that rely on those specific instruction paths.

For single-thread PassMark performance, the two are effectively tied. The i5's 3418 versus the i9's 3413 is a 0.1% difference that is statistically negligible. Any perceived advantage in day-to-day single-threaded responsiveness would likely be imperceptible.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. If you need maximum performance in 3DMark-style multithreaded tests, integer-heavy compute, or data compression, the i9-11900F is the stronger processor. Its 34.3% and 37% leads in the 3DMark threaded tests are decisive, and its 29.9% advantage in extended instructions shows where the desktop part excels.

If your primary workload involves Cinebench rendering, the i5-12500H wins by a consistent 5.4% to 5.7% across all versions of the test. It also handles floating point math, physics, and encryption better. The mobile chip's 12 cores and larger cache pool give it an edge in these specific areas, despite its lower boost clock.

The i9 is an end-of-life desktop part with a launch MSRP of $422, while the i5 is an active mobile processor. The socket difference means you cannot swap one for the other without changing the entire platform. The i9 requires a Socket 1200 motherboard, while the i5 is soldered to a BGA 1744 board.

For a desktop builder focused on synthetic multithreaded performance and integer workloads, the i9-11900F is the data-backed choice. For rendering tasks and floating point operations, the i5-12500H is the winner. Given that the i5 also supports DDR5 and includes integrated graphics, it offers broader platform flexibility in a mobile form factor. The i9's higher boost clock and 65 W TDP give it more headroom for sustained desktop workloads, but the i5's newer architecture and larger caches make it the better all-around rendering chip. Choose based on your specific workload priorities, as neither processor dominates across the full benchmark suite.