i7-12700F vs i5-3470

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-3470
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 77 Watt
2.95
Core i7-12700F
2022
12 cores / 20 threads, 65 Watt
19.32
+555%

Core i7-12700F outperforms Core i5-3470 by a whopping 555% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1644295
Place by popularity15not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.4936.35
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i5 (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency3.6328.13
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Alder Lake-S (2022)
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$184$386

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-12700F has 7318% better value for money than i5-3470.

Detailed specifications

Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads420
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4.9 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache6 MB (shared)25 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size132.8 mm2215 mm2
Maximum core temperature67 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)67 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketFCLGA1155FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)77 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
FDI+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key++
Identity Protection+-
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theft+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size32 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s76.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 2500no data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency1.1 GHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i5-3470 2.95
i7-12700F 19.32
+555%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i5-3470 4678
i7-12700F 30693
+556%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

i5-3470 621
i7-12700F 2397
+286%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

i5-3470 1838
i7-12700F 11777
+541%

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

i5-3470 5006
i7-12700F 9146
+82.7%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

i5-3470 17192
i7-12700F 56067
+226%

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

i5-3470 6179
i7-12700F 15823
+156%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

i5-3470 6
i7-12700F 34
+501%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

i5-3470 1.51
i7-12700F 3.28
+117%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.95 19.32
Recency 1 June 2012 4 January 2022
Physical cores 4 12
Threads 4 20
Power consumption (TDP) 77 Watt 65 Watt

i7-12700F has a 554.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 200% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and 18.5% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-12700F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-3470 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3470 and Core i7-12700F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i5-3470
Core i5-3470
Intel Core i7-12700F
Core i7-12700F

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 5806 votes

Rate Core i5-3470 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1401 vote

Rate Core i7-12700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-3470 or Core i7-12700F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.