
Core i5-12400F
Popular choices:

EPYC 7D12
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Core i5-12400F
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +20.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $826 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 165.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 42.3 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 42,285).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7D12, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7D12
2020Why buy it
- ✅+116.5% higher PassMark.
- ✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 42.3 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($1,000 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Core i5-12400F
2022EPYC 7D12
2020Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +20.8% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $826 less on MSRP ($174 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 165.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 112.3 vs 42.3 PassMark/$ ($174 MSRP vs $1,000 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Why buy it
- ✅+116.5% higher PassMark.
- ✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (19,532 vs 42,285).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7D12, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i5-12400F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 42.3 vs 112.3 PassMark/$ ($1,000 MSRP vs $174 MSRP).
- ❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core i5-12400F moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i5-12400F better than EPYC 7D12?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 183 FPS | 155 FPS |
| medium | 168 FPS | 128 FPS |
| high | 139 FPS | 108 FPS |
| ultra | 119 FPS | 85 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 153 FPS | 130 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 105 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 68 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 49 FPS | 34 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 471 FPS | 205 FPS |
| medium | 397 FPS | 182 FPS |
| high | 341 FPS | 153 FPS |
| ultra | 301 FPS | 125 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 407 FPS | 173 FPS |
| medium | 351 FPS | 159 FPS |
| high | 309 FPS | 137 FPS |
| ultra | 265 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 282 FPS | 112 FPS |
| medium | 248 FPS | 103 FPS |
| high | 229 FPS | 91 FPS |
| ultra | 196 FPS | 74 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 643 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 526 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 467 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 409 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 497 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 405 FPS |
| high | 485 FPS | 354 FPS |
| ultra | 434 FPS | 306 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 366 FPS |
| medium | 389 FPS | 285 FPS |
| high | 337 FPS | 243 FPS |
| ultra | 274 FPS | 195 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 797 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 719 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 620 FPS |
| ultra | 488 FPS | 537 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 645 FPS |
| medium | 488 FPS | 558 FPS |
| high | 488 FPS | 479 FPS |
| ultra | 473 FPS | 404 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 488 FPS | 440 FPS |
| medium | 450 FPS | 393 FPS |
| high | 391 FPS | 350 FPS |
| ultra | 330 FPS | 299 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and EPYC 7D12

Core i5-12400F
Core i5-12400F
The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

EPYC 7D12
EPYC 7D12
The EPYC 7D12 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Rome (2020) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 42,285 points. Launch price was $800.
Processing Power
The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7D12 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7D12 has 26 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC 7D12 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Core i5-12400F (base: 2.5 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the EPYC 7D12 uses Rome (2020) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the EPYC 7D12's 42,285 — a 73.6% lead for the EPYC 7D12. L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7D12.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 32 / 64+433% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz+47% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz+127% | 1.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 18 MB (total) | 32 MB (total)+78% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core)+150% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | Intel 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Architecture | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Rome (2020) |
| PassMark | 19,532 | 42,285+116% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 12,380 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,700 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 657 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the EPYC 7D12 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 on the Core i5-12400F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7D12 — the EPYC 7D12 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7D12 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-12400F) vs 8 (EPYC 7D12). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core i5-12400F) vs 128 (EPYC 7D12) — the EPYC 7D12 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and SP3 (EPYC 7D12).
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1700 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 4.0+33% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 | 3200+63900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB+3276700% | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 7D12). Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; EPYC 7D12 rivals Xeon Gold 6248.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | — | None |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, EPT | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V |
| Target Use | Gaming Performance/Value | — |
Value Analysis
The Core i5-12400F launched at $174 MSRP, while the EPYC 7D12 debuted at $1000. On MSRP ($174 vs $1000), the Core i5-12400F is $826 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-12400F delivers 112.3 pts/$ vs 42.3 pts/$ for the EPYC 7D12 — making the Core i5-12400F the 90.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core i5-12400F | EPYC 7D12 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $174-83% | $1000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 112.3+165% | 42.3 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2020 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












