Slower by 12400 compared to 8700
Slower by 12400 compared to 8700
From the comparisons above, the 8700 non-K appears to outperform the 12400. This contradicts my expectation that a newer i5 would surpass an older i7.
No, 12400 is significantly quicker. 8700 is about 20-40% slower, that's what I heard.
the base frequency offers limited insight; IPC and benchmarks provide clearer performance insights.
Just some friendly advice: don't take sites like these seriously. Simply counting cores, threads and gigahertzes(?) and calling it a day isn't a benchmark. It's not a useful comparison at all. You'll want to look for sites that actually list test execution time or test scores. So real-world performance. Something like this . Although they don't have a 12400, you can already easily make out that even the 12300 beats or at least comes near the 8700. Not bad for half the power usage!
They might argue that a 200 horsepower Civic Si falls short against a 400 horsepower Ford F-150. The numbers don’t tell the whole tale. These sources are just data, not proper evaluation.
It's that site I remember from a while back—it's really not great. Take the 2005 Pentium 4 versus the 12400: https://www.cpuagent.com/cpu-compare/int...tx-3080-ti. The Core i5-12400 is aimed at mid-range users, whereas the Pentium 4 660 is a top-tier processor. It features six cores compared to the Pentium 4's single core. More cores mean smoother multitasking and better handling of complex threads. A solid base clock of 3.6GHz gives the Pentium 4 660 an edge in most scenarios. The Core i5-12400 offers strong boost speeds for gaming and single-threaded work. It uses less power at 65W, thanks to a 10nm process that handles heat better. This model is newer than the older one.