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 i5-12500 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£210PassMark multi-core score:19732N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.6 GHzCPU socket:LGA1700TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i5-12500 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 5 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i5-12500
6.9/10

Overall score

Score
6.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 56% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

6.9

Reviews score

25%

6.9

List score

10%

?

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

▲Better than 56% of processors
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

▲Better than 65%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 66% of models
Score components

60%

6.5

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 66%
6.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models

6.9

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 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.
▼Worse than 63%
6.9

List score

List score
6.9/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • intel-core-i5-12500
  • intel-core-i5-12500
  • intel-core-i5-12500
  • intel-core-i5-12500
  • intel-core-i5-12500
intel-core-i5-12500
intel-core-i5-12500
intel-core-i5-12500
intel-core-i5-12500
intel-core-i5-12500
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 i5-12500

Based on 2 · 2

Most reviewers find the overall speed disappointing, though not everyone agrees.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-12500

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 66% of models
Score components:

60%

6.5

Performance

18%

7.0

Architecture

10%

8.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

6.9
Reviews score
6.9
List score
6.9
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components:

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

9.4

Price

7.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1700
This processor uses the LGA1700 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 84.5% of processors and equal to that of 8.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680
This processor supports Z790, H770, B760, Z690, H670, B660, H610, Q670, W680 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% 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
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% 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
4.6 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.6 GHz which is higher than that of 59.9% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
19,732
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,732 in PassMark, which is higher than 68.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
7.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 7.5 MB which is larger than that of 71% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
L1 cache
480 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 480 KB which is larger than that of 60.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 770
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 770 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 57.8% of processors and equal to that in 4.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
117 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 117 W which is higher than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-12500 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 42.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,650 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,650 vs 2,558
  • 73.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,029 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,029 vs 5,209
  • 72% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,732 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,732 vs 11,469
  • 51.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,320 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,320 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 76.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,960 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,960 vs 2,804.5
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1700 vs FP5).
    LGA1700 vs FP5
  • 42.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,650 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,650 vs 2,558
  • 73.3% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,029 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,029 vs 5,209
  • 72% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,732 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,732 vs 11,469
  • 51.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,320 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,320 vs 1,535
  • 76.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,960 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,960 vs 2,804.5
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 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
  • 4.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 2.5x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (7.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    7.5 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
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 71.3% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (97.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    97.68 vs 340.075
  • 11.5% lower list score
    List score
    6.9/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    6.9 vs 7.8
  • 82.8% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (117 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    117 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 11.5% lower list score
    List score
    6.9/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    6.9 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 71.3% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (97.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    97.68 vs 340.075
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 82.8% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (117 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    117 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
17/03/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks against i5-12400
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12500 is worth buying over the i5-12400 mainly for video editing, if the price gap is small.
6.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
01/03/2022
Comparison with another model · game and CPU benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i5-12500 is only slightly faster than its cheaper sibling, so it's worth it only if priced the same.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
04/02/2022
Lab test · Power limits
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12500 beats the Core i5-12400 on clock speed and built-in graphics, but under power limits the gap can vanish.
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
04/02/2022
Full review · Gaming CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12500 is the better all-round pick among small six-core gaming chips, up to 7 percent faster than the Core i5-12400.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
02/04/2022
Review · Six-core desktop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i5-12500 is a well-rounded six-core chip that handles apps and games well and is easy to cool, but it lacks Turbo Boost Max.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-12500

  • Improved integrated graphics (UHD 770) over the i5-12400 (UHD 730), making it better for users without a dedicated GPU
  • Strong single-core performance that competes well with higher-end CPUs in gaming and 1080p tasks
  • Excellent power efficiency with a 65W TDP, allowing it to run cool even with standard cooling solutions
  • Support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility for budget or future-proof builds
  • Includes a stock cooler (Laminar RM1) in the box, saving on additional build costs

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-12500

  • Marginal performance gains (often only 1-2%) over the cheaper i5-12400 in most CPU-bound workloads
  • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking, limiting potential for enthusiast performance tuning
  • Price-to-performance ratio is often considered poor if the cost is significantly higher than the i5-12400
  • Lacks the efficiency cores (E-cores) found in higher-tier 12th Gen models like the i5-12600K
  • Integrated graphics are still insufficient for demanding AAA gaming at high settings

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-12500 is a versatile mid-range desktop processor based on the Alder Lake architecture, featuring 6 performance cores and 12 threads with a 3.0 GHz base frequency and a 4.6 GHz max turbo boost. Built on the Intel 7 process (10nm), it includes 18 MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 65W base power draw, and supports both DDR4-3200 and DDR5-4800 memory alongside PCIe 5.0 and 4.0. Its main advantages include the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 770 with dual codec engines for better streaming/transcoding and a slight clock speed bump over the popular i5-12400. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of efficiency (E-cores) found in higher-end 12th Gen models and a performance-to-price ratio that often makes it less compelling than the cheaper i5-12400 for users with dedicated graphics cards.

Compare Intel Core i5-12500 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 i5-12500 and other processors

No results found