OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i9 12900H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£550PassMark benchmark result:26823N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i9 12900H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.1

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

90%

8.1

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 89% of processors
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.9

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 89% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £550

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9 12900H

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.9

Integrated Graphics

8.1
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i9 12900H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.0/ 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 85% of models
Score components:

60%

8.1

Overall score

40%

7.6

Price

8.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
CPU socket
FCBGA1744
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 71.8% of processors and equal to that of 5% of processors.
Chipset
HM670, WM690
Chipset
HM670, WM690
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
This processor supports HM670, WM690 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 63.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
N. of physical cores
14
â–² Better than 87% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 87.1% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
20
CPU threads
20
â–² Better than 85% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 85.3% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
â–² Better than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 80.3% of processors and equal to that of 5.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 8x 1.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 8x 1.8 GHz
â–² Better than 84% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 83.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
Foundry
Intel 7
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
24 MB
L3 cache
24 MB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.8% of processors.
L2 cache
11.5 MB
L2 cache
11.5 MB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 11.5 MB which is larger than that of 82.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
L1 cache
1,248 KB
L1 cache
1,248 KB
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,248 KB which is larger than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
â–² Better than 79% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
â–² Better than 72% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 72.3% of processors and equal to 6.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-5200 MHz
â–² Better than 70% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-5200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU
â–² Better than 81% of models
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 81.1% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
96
Integrated GPU execution units
96
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 96 GPU execution units, which is more than 95% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
â–² Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 85% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85% of processors and equal to 5.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i9 12900H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.86x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    13,797
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,797 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,797 vs 4,829
  • 2.54x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,823
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,823 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,823 vs 10,572.5
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 12 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    20
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 2.28x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    6,371
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,371 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,371 vs 2,791
  • 67.5% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,464
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,464 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,464 vs 1,471
  • 46.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,670
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,670 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,670 vs 2,500
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 21.8% better value for money
    Intel Core i9 12900H has better value for money than the average processor (7.99 vs 6.6).
    7.99 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 2.86x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    13,797
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,797 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,797 vs 4,829
  • 2.54x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,823
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,823 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,823 vs 10,572.5
  • 8 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    14
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 12 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    20
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 2.28x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    6,371
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (6,371 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    6,371 vs 2,791
  • 67.5% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,464
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,464 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,464 vs 1,471
  • 46.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,670
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,670 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,670 vs 2,500
  • 16.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.0 GHz
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 50.1% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    734
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (734 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    734 vs 489
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 2.5 GHz & 8 x 1.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    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
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Boost Max 3
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 4.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    11.5 MB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (11.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    11.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Alder Lake
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    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
    L2 per core
    1.25 MB/core
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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.
    E-core cluster: 0.5 MB shared
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.25x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,248 KB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1248 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,248 KB vs 384 KB
  • 3x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    24 MB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    24 MB vs 8 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • 77.3% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    5,200 MHz
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5200 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    5,200 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-5200 MHz
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    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
  • 4x more GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    96
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (96 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    96 vs 24
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU
    â–² Better than 81% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 22.6% larger die size
    Die size
    217 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 2.2x more expensive
    Intel Core i9 12900H is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 30.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    231.17
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (231.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    231.17 vs 334.1
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1744
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP4
  • 2.2x more expensive
    Intel Core i9 12900H is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1744
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP4
  • 30.8% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    231.17
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (231.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    231.17 vs 334.1
  • 22.6% larger die size
    Die size
    217 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x8/x4/x4
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
tomshardware.com
05/03/2022
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Flow Z13 Gaming Tablet Review Would you like to compare the performance benchmarks of the i9-12900H against its successor or a specific AMD c...
P
pcworld.com
22/08/2022
Summary of the review
Acer Predator Triton 300 SE OLED review
T
tomshardware.com
21/09/2022
Summary of the review
Acer Predator Triton 300 SE Review: Cinematic Quality Screen
T
tomshardware.com
03/06/2022
Summary of the review
Acer Predator Triton 500 SE (2022) Review
T
tomshardware.com
15/07/2022
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 G733Z Review
P
pcworld.com
14/01/2022
Summary of the review
Intel's 12th-gen Core i9-12900H is the fastest laptop CPU ever
C
cpubenchmark.net
Q1 2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H - CPU Benchmarks
L
lesnumeriques.com
25/02/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H: An ultra-fast mobile processor that's a total power hog
(Translated)Show original
I
itdaily.fr
14/04/2022
Summary of the review
MSI Creator Z17 Review: Seductive Power
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
18/03/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/01/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-13900HX vs Core i9-12900H Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
04/01/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H | LaptopMedia - Specs and Benchmark Tests
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
25/02/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H Debut: Uniwill Technology GM7AG8P Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original
T
techtesters.eu
23/01/2022
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-12900H Review - Techtesters
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i9 12900H

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance, often outperforming the Ryzen 9 6900HX in benchmarks
  • Strong productivity performance, particularly in content creation like video editing and 3D rendering
  • Integrated graphics with 96 EUs provide a notable lead in certain graphics-heavy workloads
  • Includes full 'Enterprise' vPro features for remote management and security
  • Support for high-speed DDR5-4800 and LPDDR5-5200 memory

What we don't like about Intel Core i9 12900H

  • Poor value for money as performance is often nearly identical to the cheaper i7-12700H
  • High operating temperatures, frequently reaching 90-100°C under load without proper cooling
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking (unlike the i9-12900HK)
  • Significant power consumption when pushed, which can negatively impact battery life
  • Performance is heavily dependent on laptop cooling; thinner laptops may suffer from thermal throttling

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-12900H is a high-performance 12th Gen 'Alder Lake' laptop processor featuring a hybrid architecture with 14 cores (6 Performance-cores and 8 Efficient-cores) and 20 threads. It boasts a maximum turbo frequency of 5.00 GHz, a 24 MB Intel Smart Cache, and a base power of 45W that can scale up to 115W under maximum turbo loads. Its primary pros include exceptional single-core and multi-threaded performance for gaming and demanding content creation, alongside advanced connectivity support for DDR5-4800 RAM, PCIe 4.0, and Thunderbolt 4. However, notable cons include high power consumption and significant heat generation, which can lead to thermal throttling and reduced battery life in thinner laptop designs.

Compare Intel Core i9 12900H 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 i9 12900H and other processors

No results found