Performance in 1280 x 720 pixels resolution (“720p”) and provoked CPU limit
First, let’s look at the normalized and cumulative average FPS. The Core i5-12400 is still a bit behind the direct competitor in the form of the Ryzen 5 5600X in 720p. DDR4 and DDR5 don’t differ here in total and in direct comparison (yet).
If you take a look at the normalized percentages, then the 5 percentage points gap to the Ryzen 5 5600X is almost nothing that can’t be compensated for with a bit faster RAM, at least to some extent. The Core i5-12400 only fails here because of the somewhat slowed down Turbo clock.
Much more interesting, however, is the value for 1% low FPS, that is the first percentile (P1). Here, the Core i5-12400 only has a gap of around 3 percentage points, which is also just outside the tolerance limits. We’ll have to wait a little longer for the real tie. The emulated CPU performed slightly better in 720p, but it also ran on the Z690 board.
Performance in 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution (“1080p”) and CPU and GPU limit
Not only does the gap narrow, but the Core i5-12400 can now pull ahead of the Ryzen 5 5600X by a razor-thin margin in the much more practical 1080p. What a precision landing, Intel has apparently looked very closely! DDR4 is also slightly ahead of DDR5 again, but this is all still within the tolerance range, albeit a very stable trend.
Expressed in percentages, the Intel CPU’s lead is now a barely measurable 0.2 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively, and it really is a real tie in the end when you think about the tolerances. The values of the emulated CPU are also exactly on par with the retail sample. Fancy.
However, one way of looking at it that puts the Core i5-12400 clearly and of course measurably ahead is the evaluation of the Min-FPS, the so-called P1. Intel can add more than 3 percentage points to the Core i9-12400 in both options compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X. Sure these aren’t galaxies yet, but it’s noticeable.
Performance in 2560 x 1440 pixels resolution (“1440p”) and GPU limit
You can already see very clearly that the CPU actually hardly plays a role in the average FPS, which are all very close together. Except for the P1, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
In absolute terms, the 1 to 2 percentage points between the Core i5-12400 and the Ryzen 5 5600X is almost within tolerance, even though the result remained consistent over a few runs. So the average FPS still fits for a more or less exact tie.
If it weren’t for the inferior P1 and the darn Min FPS from AMD’s point of view! It is still almost 2 to 4 percentage points that AMD is missing on Intel again. More or less pronounced depending on the game, but not entirely negligible in the aggregate. And above all again also as with the new CPU.
- 1 - Introduction, preface and test systems
- 2 - MSI MEG B660M Mortar WiFi DDR5 in detail
- 3 - MSI MEG B660M Mortar WiFi DDR4 in detail
- 4 - 720p - Gaming Performance
- 5 - 720p - Power consumption and efficiency
- 6 - 1080p - Gaming Performance
- 7 - 1080p - Power consumption and efficiency
- 8 - 1440p - Gaming Performance
- 9 - 1440p - Power consumption and efficiency
- 10 - Overall evaluation of gaming performance
- 11 - Overall evalutaion of power consumption and efficiency
- 12 - Summary and conclusion for gaming
48 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Urgestein
Veteran
1
Veteran
1
Veteran
1
Veteran
Urgestein
Mitglied
Veteran
1
Urgestein
Mitglied
Mitglied
Veteran
1
Urgestein
1
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →