Intel Core i7-12700T vs Intel Core i9-11900KB Comparison

The Intel Core i7-12700T and Intel Core i9-11900KB sit at nearly identical average benchmark scores, with the i7-12700T at 5606 and the i9-11900KB at 5587, a delta of just 0.3%. This places them both at the 61st percentile of all CPUs. The data reveals a fascinating clash: a power-sipping 12-core Alder Lake desktop chip facing a higher-clocked 8-core Tiger Lake mobile part. The i9-11900KB wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, yet the overall averages remain close, suggesting the i7-12700T’s strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite, particularly in Geekbench. This is a matchup where the "winner" depends entirely on the workload, and the benchmark data provides the necessary nuance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-11900KB is the clear victor in the Cinebench suite, taking every single test from R15 through R23. The data shows a consistent margin of victory, with the i9-11900KB outperforming the i7-12700T by 6.6% to 6.8% across all six benchmarks. This dominance is uniform, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, indicating a fundamental performance advantage in this specific rendering workload. For users whose primary concern is Cinebench-style rendering, the i9-11900KB is the unequivocal choice.

The Intel Core i7-12700T’s wins are not in the Cinebench suite but in other benchmark categories. The data shows the i7-12700T achieving a Geekbench multi-core score of 11502 and a single-core score of 2089, while the i9-11900KB has no Geekbench scores listed in the fact pack. This absence is significant; it means the i7-12700T offers proven performance in Geekbench that the i9-11900KB cannot match in this dataset. The i7-12700T’s 12 cores and 20 threads, compared to the i9-11900KB’s 8 cores and 16 threads, suggest a theoretical advantage in highly parallel, non-Cinebench workloads. The i7-12700T also has a larger L3 cache at 25 MB shared versus 24 MB shared, and its architecture is newer, which could translate to better performance in applications that leverage newer instruction sets.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The i7-12700T is built on Alder Lake-S, Intel’s 12th-generation hybrid architecture, which combines performance and efficiency cores. It has 12 cores and 20 threads, a configuration that relies on the hybrid design to balance power and throughput. In contrast, the i9-11900KB is a Tiger Lake-H part, a 10th-generation mobile architecture with 8 cores and 16 threads, all of which are performance cores. This fundamental difference in core design explains why the i9-11900KB can achieve higher clock speeds: its base clock is 3.30 GHz and boost clock is 5.30 GHz, while the i7-12700T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and boost of 4.70 GHz.

The process nodes are both listed as 10 nm, and both are built by Intel, but the die sizes differ slightly. The i7-12700T has a die size of 215 mm², while the i9-11900KB is slightly smaller at 190 mm². The i7-12700T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i9-11900KB is limited to DDR4. The i9-11900KB does have a listed memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, a figure not provided for the i7-12700T. PCIe support also differs: the i7-12700T offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the i9-11900KB offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i7-12700T is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, whereas the i9-11900KB is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1787, and the i9-11900KB has an unlocked multiplier while the i7-12700T does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is a clean sweep for the i9-11900KB. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-11900KB scores 1946 against the i7-12700T’s 1815, a 6.7% difference. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 274 versus 256, a 6.6% gap. Moving to R20, the i9-11900KB scores 8112 multi-core versus 7565, and 1145 single-core versus 1067, both showing a 6.7% and 6.8% delta respectively. The R23 results continue the trend: 19316 multi-core versus 18012 (6.8% delta) and 2727 single-core versus 2542 (6.8% delta).

The consistency of these margins is striking. Every single test, regardless of the Cinebench version or the core count, shows the i9-11900KB ahead by nearly the same percentage. This suggests that the i9-11900KB’s higher clock speeds are the dominant factor in this benchmark, overwhelming the i7-12700T’s additional four cores and four threads. The i9-11900KB’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz is 600 MHz higher than the i7-12700T’s 4.70 GHz, and this single advantage appears to be decisive for Cinebench. However, the i7-12700T’s Geekbench multi-core score of 11502 is its counterpoint, a number that hints at stronger performance in a different type of workload, though no direct comparison is available.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-12700T has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 5606, compared to the Intel Core i9-11900KB’s 5587, a difference of 0.3%.

Q: How many more cores does the i7-12700T have?

A: The i7-12700T has 12 cores and 20 threads, while the i9-11900KB has 8 cores and 16 threads, giving the i7-12700T a 4-core and 4-thread advantage.

Q: Does the i9-11900KB win any Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, the i9-11900KB wins all six Cinebench tests listed in the head-to-head data, with margins ranging from 6.6% to 6.8% over the i7-12700T.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The i9-11900KB has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the i7-12700T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the i7-12700T has a score but the i9-11900KB does not?

A: Yes, the i7-12700T has Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores of 11502 and 2089, respectively, while the i9-11900KB has no Geekbench scores listed.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: The i7-12700T is listed as "Active" in production, while the i9-11900KB is listed as "End-of-life".

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-12700T | Intel Core i9-11900KB |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1400.00 | 3.30 |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 | 5.30 |

| TDP | 35 | 65 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1787 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Tiger Lake-H |

| Generation | Core i7 (Alder Lake-S) | Core i9 (Tiger Lake-H) |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 190 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 25 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | UHD Graphics 750 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Launch MSRP | $339 | $539 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | false | true |

| Part Number | SRL4S | SRKU4 |

The Verdict

The data favors the Intel Core i9-11900KB for users prioritizing Cinebench rendering performance. It wins every head-to-head test, with a consistent 6.6% to 6.8% advantage. Its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz is a clear asset in these workloads. The i9-11900KB also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a feature the i7-12700T lacks. For those specific rendering tasks, the i9-11900KB is the stronger performer, despite its higher 65 W TDP and end-of-life status.

The Intel Core i7-12700T is the better choice for users who value a broader feature set and future-proofing. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, PCIe Gen 5, and its "Active" production status make it a more modern and flexible platform. Its 12-core, 20-thread configuration, paired with a 35 W TDP, suggests superior efficiency for multi-threaded workloads outside of Cinebench. The Geekbench scores of 11502 and 2089 provide evidence of this potential, even without a direct comparison. The i7-12700T’s lower launch MSRP of $339, versus $539 for the i9-11900KB, further reinforces its position for users building a new system. The data indicates the i7-12700T is a more well-rounded, current-generation option, while the i9-11900KB is a specialized, high-clock performer for a narrower set of tasks.