Question Will the $115 I3 12100 processor reset the 'budget' PC scene?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,327
126
The UHD730 is the nerfed one.

Need to jump all the way up to a i5-12600k at $300 USD to get the UHD 770.
The 12500 currently at $224 also has UHD 770. It is why I recommended it above. If you can swing a bit more money than the 12100, the 12500 has:
  • a significantly better iGPU (50% more execution units running at a slightly higher clock rate),
  • 2 more cores (50% more),
  • and higher clock rates (although just barely noticeable at 7% faster).
You won't love the UHD 770 gaming performance, but at least most games are playable at low settings. Unlike UHD 730 which is just a slideshow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
The 12500 currently at $224 also has UHD 770. It is why I recommended it above. If you can swing a bit more money than the 12100, the 12500 has:
  • a significantly better iGPU (50% more execution units running at a slightly higher clock rate),
  • 2 more cores (50% more),
  • and higher clock rates (although just barely noticeable at 7% faster).
You won't love the UHD 770 gaming performance, but at least most games are playable at low settings. Unlike UHD 730 which is just a slideshow.

If you considering the 12500 for better iGPU then perhaps it would be better to go for the 5600G. Price for the 5600G + B550 motherboard will be the same as 12500 + B660 motherboard, you get better iGPU that in some games can be as high as 2x times vs HD770 and in other games will give you above 30fps when HD770 will straggle at sub 30fps. You will lose CPU performance compared to 12500 so you have to weight what you need more. But if the iGPU performance is what you need then 5600G is the one to get at that price point.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,727
3,560
136
If you considering the 12500 for better iGPU then perhaps it would be better to go for the 5600G. Price for the 5600G + B550 motherboard will be the same as 12500 + B660 motherboard, you get better iGPU that in some games can be as high as 2x times vs HD770 and in other games will give you above 30fps when HD770 will straggle at sub 30fps. You will lose CPU performance compared to 12500 so you have to weight what you need more. But if the iGPU performance is what you need then 5600G is the one to get at that price point.
UHD 770 is more useful for other things than gaming.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,785
136
You won't love the UHD 770 gaming performance, but at least most games are playable at low settings. Unlike UHD 730 which is just a slideshow.

Come on. For a mere 50% difference one is a slideshow and the other is playable?

I know everyone wants to jump on the hyperbole bandwagon, but let's not? They are both very very slow.

Now I agree iGPUs are very useful. Not to the point of paying $100 for a higher class one, though I admit I bought a 2600K(returned the 2600) for the same reason. So making everything better the higher you go up the price range does pay off somewhat for these companies.

But logically these are display and troubleshooting devices.

They could have put a more compelling IGP on it, they just decided not to.

Uhh, that's because a high end iGPU on a desktop chip makes lot less sense. Hence why it's on the mobile ones. Do you think the Iris Xe G7 will make games suddenly playable?

The thinking is much more binary when it comes to this. Either people are into doing registry and fiddling with drivers playing games at 720p low resolutions or you want a decent one running medium-high and 1080p. The middle ground is really small.

Most of the gaming scene is socially connected. Gaming with a system that you need to make significant compromises or runs stuttery is a pain. A friend says "there's this cool new game!" And you say, "let me see if I can run it at all or at above 15 fps". Yea.

1% gain on a GPU is a lot, lot less value than 1% gain on the CPU side. 2x performance at this level is... not much. You want 3-5x faster.

Lot of people here complain that it even has an iGPU and that it should be stripped off!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,151
11,686
136
A friend says "there's this cool new game!" And you say, "let me see if I can run it at all or at above 15 fps". Yea.
Reminds me of just that: someone in a clan asking me me if I could tank the boss in a different position relative to the center of the room, so that his computer could stay above 15 fps. And that was just the first boss in the raid.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,727
3,560
136
Problem being unless you plan on using it for gaming, the 710/730 have the exact same features. What's the point of a larger IGP if it will not run anything acceptably anyway?

The 5600G is at least capable of running most titles, even if you have to tone down settings.
UHD 770 has two codec engines compared to one on UHD 730. It will be better suited to media streaming, especially streaming concurrently in something like Plex.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
UHD 770 has two codec engines compared to one on UHD 730. It will be better suited to media streaming, especially streaming concurrently in something like Plex.
Outside of piracy, who is streaming enough plex streams for that to matter?

Minimal research indicates the 5600g is capable of turning out about 10 plex 1080p plex streams simultaneously without transcoding* at all. The i3-12100 likely can do just as well.

Transcoding support is irrelevant.

------------------------------

*plex currently supports transcoding on AMD / Nvidia in windows, and will be expanding it to other platforms soon. There are already opensource github projects offering plex transcoding support for AMD on non-windows platforms. See: https://support.plex.tv/articles/115002178853-using-hardware-accelerated-streaming/
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
Come on. For a mere 50% difference one is a slideshow and the other is playable?

I know everyone wants to jump on the hyperbole bandwagon, but let's not? They are both very very slow.

Now I agree iGPUs are very useful. Not to the point of paying $100 for a higher class one, though I admit I bought a 2600K(returned the 2600) for the same reason. So making everything better the higher you go up the price range does pay off somewhat for these companies.

But logically these are display and troubleshooting devices.

A mere 50% difference?

Jumping from 15-20 fps to 30-40 fps is the difference between unplayable and playable.

Jumping from crap intel drivers to fully functional drivers is the difference between unplayable and playable.

Jumping from 3-5 minimums to 20-25 minimums is the difference between puking and enjoyment.


In a day and age where the GPU has become unobtainium, the iGPU matters more then ever.

The thinking is much more binary when it comes to this. Either people are into doing registry and fiddling with drivers playing games at 720p low resolutions or you want a decent one running medium-high and 1080p. The middle ground is really small.
Futzing with the registry is very much an Intel iGPU thing, and if anything indicates the desperation people will go to in order to get a working iGPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Zepp

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,727
3,560
136
Outside of piracy, who is streaming enough plex streams for that to matter?

Minimal research indicates the 5600g is capable of turning out about 10 plex 1080p plex streams simultaneously without transcoding* at all. The i3-12100 likely can do just as well.

Transcoding support is irrelevant.

------------------------------

*plex currently supports transcoding on AMD / Nvidia in windows, and will be expanding it to other platforms soon. There are already opensource github projects offering plex transcoding support for AMD on non-windows platforms. See: https://support.plex.tv/articles/115002178853-using-hardware-accelerated-streaming/
It also says:

Our hardware-transcoding system has technical support for many dedicated AMD graphics cards, but we haven’t done official, full testing on those. Support for AMD GPUs is provided “as is” and your mileage may vary. It is recommended that you use Intel Quick Sync Video or a dedicated NVIDIA GPU.

AMD's transcoding support is inferior to Intel and NVIDIA.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,327
126
Come on. For a mere 50% difference one is a slideshow and the other is playable?

I know everyone wants to jump on the hyperbole bandwagon, but let's not? They are both very very slow.

Now I agree iGPUs are very useful. Not to the point of paying $100 for a higher class one, though I admit I bought a 2600K(returned the 2600) for the same reason. So making everything better the higher you go up the price range does pay off somewhat for these companies.
It isn't just a 50% difference, it is more than that. 50% more iGPU execution units, yes, but the iGPUs are running at different frequencies. And the two extra CPU cores. And the higher CPU speeds. The net result can be significantly more than 50% difference in framerates.

Here are some comparisons. This particular spot is about 3X faster with UHD 770 vs UHD 730. Some titles will be much closer as shown in other games in that video. But yes, it very much can be 37 FPS playable and 12 FPS as a slideshow. You are correct that both are quite slow. But at least one is reasonably playable.
1642516577275.png
YouTube comparison video.

If you want to talk about hyperbole, then look at your own post. They aren't $100 different.
That is only $14.95 more to get a much better iGPU and 200 MHz faster CPU at turbo, or 500 MHz faster at base clocks if you don't have a great cooling system. Or $77.45 more at the same store to go all the way from the 12100 to the 12500.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,327
126
If you considering the 12500 for better iGPU then perhaps it would be better to go for the 5600G. Price for the 5600G + B550 motherboard will be the same as 12500 + B660 motherboard, you get better iGPU that in some games can be as high as 2x times vs HD770 and in other games will give you above 30fps when HD770 will straggle at sub 30fps. You will lose CPU performance compared to 12500 so you have to weight what you need more. But if the iGPU performance is what you need then 5600G is the one to get at that price point.
The 5600G is a great chip. But both of your combinations are outside the realm of what I personally consider a budget PC. On the Intel side, I don't think a B660 is really going to "reset the PC scene" as the OP called it. If it happens, it'll be the H610 once those cheaper motherboards are much more available. Ultimately, though, if all you need is a good GPU and you can swing more money than a budget PC, yes, by all means get the 5600G.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
AMD's transcoding support is inferior to Intel and NVIDIA.

Which does not matter unless the user pushes over 10 streams 1080p. (or about 2.5 streams in 4k )

Outside of pirates, who is pushing over 10 streams?

Even for the pirates, the the transcoding is already working, it is just not thoroughly tested.


The transcoding support issue in plex simply does not matter for nearly all customers. It likely never did.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,727
3,560
136
The transcoding support issue in plex simply does not matter for nearly all customers. It likely never did.
You sure about that?


Quote from Plex employee:

It's .... complicated. The amd drivers are much harder to ship than the nvidia ones and the ffmpeg support is a bit worse for wear.

We might end up doing it - but considering the marketshare of quicksync and nvidia GPUs ... I bet you can fill in the rest :)
Another quote:
I mean most Plex devs are running AMD systems to get the high core count. It's not just a marketshare thing. If the ffmpeg integration was more straightforward we would have shipped it by now. But considering there are several technical hurdles that requires quite a bit of effort you have to weigh that against how many users that would benefit.

In other words, h265 encodes may fail and they don't bother fixing it because of the little market share and that it is highly non-trivial to do so.
 
Last edited:

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,835
1,514
136
AMD is (unofficially) using Renoir for the entry level, 4350G, 4650G and 4750G. But AMD dosent care about the budget market anymore, even then the prices were normal they never cared that they never replaced the 3200G at $100 and that Intel had I3 there, even after the 10100 launched and it was a 4/4 vs a 4/8 they didnt do anything, they never cared that the 9400 and 10400 were smashing the 3400G to bits at <$200 in everything that wasnt IGP gaming. Intel has been offering superior price/perf at $100-$200 for a while now.
In fact, im petty sure Renoir never officially launched to AM4 because AMD was unwilling to price them accordingly with what Intel had. ($110 for 4300G and $170 for 4600G).

They did launched the 3100/3300X/3500X but in limited numbers and where very short lived.

So yeah, i dont see how the 12100 changes anything, its a 4/8 CPU that performs like a 6/12 CPU that is over two and a half years old. The $180 10400/11400 were already doing that. And the motherboards will be more expensive than before. So there is not much of a gain in price cut either.
If AMD can choose again not to compite, they are going to do it. If it really performs like a 3600 they need to bring down the 4650G/5600G to 12100 price, not gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and scineram