OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-12450H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260PassMark multi-core score:16034N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i5-12450H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 63% of models
Score components

40%

6.5

Technical score

25%

7.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 63% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–²Better than 71%
6.5

Technical score

Technical score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 60%
7.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 50% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 50%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £260
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i5-12450H

Based on 1 · 2

Reviewers largely agree the generous port selection is a real strength, with only minor reservations from a few.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-12450H

Technical score
Technical score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

60%

6.0

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

6.5
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.7
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 73.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series
This processor supports Intel 600 Series, Intel 700 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 81.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.0 GHz & 4x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.0 GHz & 4x1.5 GHz which is lower than that of 52.4% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
16,034
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 16,034 in PassMark, which is higher than 60.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
7 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 7 MB which is larger than that of 70.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
L1 cache
704 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 704 KB which is larger than that of 77% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 69.1% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 48EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 48EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 59.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
48
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 48 GPU execution units, which is more than 82.1% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.4% of processors and equal to that of 8.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
95 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 95 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i5-12450H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 70.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,862 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,862 vs 5,209
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 41.7% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,175 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,175 vs 1,535
  • 28.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,289 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,289 vs 2,558
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 13.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 50% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.6 vs 6.7
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 70.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,862 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,862 vs 5,209
  • 41.7% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,175 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,175 vs 1,535
  • 28.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,289 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,289 vs 2,558
  • 39.8% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,034 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    16,034 vs 11,469
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 29.3% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,625 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,625 vs 2,804.5
  • 14.5% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (561 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    561 vs 490
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 3
    6 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (7 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    7 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 83.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (704 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    704 KB vs 384 KB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-5200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-5,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 2x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (48 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    48 vs 24
  • 73% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (107.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    107.37 vs 398.015
  • 68.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (107 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    107.01 vs 340.075
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 48.4% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    95 W vs 64 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 73% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (107.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    107.37 vs 398.015
  • 68.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (107 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    107.01 vs 340.075
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 48.4% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    95 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
HTWingNut
≈ estimated
31/01/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling, Linux and power tests
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12450H compact Windows mini PC is responsive and affordable, but its 1 GbE ethernet holds it back.
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-12450H

  • Excellent value for money, often found in high-value budget gaming laptops
  • Strong single-core performance suitable for gaming and standard productivity tasks
  • Efficient thermal management in most chassis, with users reporting stable temperatures under load
  • Supports modern standards including DDR5 memory and PCIe 4.0
  • Capable of handling 1080p gaming at high frame rates when paired with a decent GPU

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-12450H

  • Multi-core performance is somewhat disappointing compared to AMD Ryzen or higher-tier 12th gen chips
  • Weak integrated graphics (UHD Graphics) makes it unsuitable for gaming without a dedicated GPU
  • Prone to thermal throttling in laptops with poor cooling or obstructed air intake
  • Locked multiplier prevents any overclocking to boost performance
  • High power consumption (up to 95W turbo power) can lead to rapid battery drain during heavy tasks

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-12450H is a mid-range mobile processor from the Alder Lake-H series, featuring a hybrid architecture with 8 cores (4 Performance and 4 Efficient) and 12 threads. It operates at a base frequency of 2.0 GHz with a max turbo boost of 4.4 GHz, supported by 12 MB of Intel Smart Cache and a 45W base TDP. Main pros include strong single-core performance for productivity tasks, support for modern DDR5-4800 and LPDDR5-5200 memory, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics capable of driving up to four displays. However, its primary cons are a relatively weak integrated GPU for modern gaming, a lack of Intel vPro support, and potential thermal throttling in thin laptop chassis under heavy multi-threaded workloads.

Compare Intel Core i5-12450H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-12450H and other processors

No results found