Core i9-12900HX vs Core i7-12700F

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-12700F
2022
12 cores / 20 threads, 65 Watt
19.82
Core i9-12900HX
2022
16 cores / 24 threads, 55 Watt
22.05
+11.3%

i9-12900HX outperforms i7-12700F by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking269225
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation60.49no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Architecture codenameAlder LakeAlder Lake-HX
Release date4 January 2022 (2 years ago)10 May 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$386no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads2024
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed4.9 GHz5 GHz
L1 cache1 MB1.4 MB
L2 cache12 MB14 MB
L3 cache25 MB30 MB
Chip lithography10 nm10 nm
Die size215 mm2215 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX 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
SocketLGA 1700BGA1964
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt55 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMAno data+
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
TSX++

Security technologies

Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4, DDR5 Dual-channelDDR4, DDR5
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s76.8 GB/s
ECC memory supportno data-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 770

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes2020

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.

i7-12700F 19.82
i9-12900HX 22.05
+11.3%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i7-12700F 30650
i9-12900HX 34107
+11.3%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 11% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-12700F 9146
i9-12900HX 9509
+4%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 4% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

i7-12700F 56067
i9-12900HX 64621
+15.3%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 15% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

i7-12700F 15823
i9-12900HX 17668
+11.7%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 12% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

i7-12700F 2.95
+165%
i9-12900HX 7.83

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 165% in wPrime 32.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

i7-12700F 34
i9-12900HX 42
+24%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 24% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

i7-12700F 2610
i9-12900HX 3566
+36.6%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 37% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made 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 (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i7-12700F 271
i9-12900HX 278
+2.6%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 3% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

i7-12700F 3.28
i9-12900HX 3.35
+2.1%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 2% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

i7-12700F 3.3
i9-12900HX 17.4
+427%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 427% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 12%

i7-12700F 8695
i9-12900HX 9993
+14.9%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 15% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 12%

i7-12700F 119
i9-12900HX 186
+56.5%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 56% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 12%

i7-12700F 297
i9-12900HX 314
+5.8%

Core i9-12900HX outperforms Core i7-12700F by 6% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.82 22.05
Recency 4 January 2022 10 May 2022
Physical cores 12 16
Threads 20 24
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 55 Watt

i9-12900HX has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, 33.3% more physical cores and 20% more threads, and 18.2% lower power consumption.

The Core i9-12900HX is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-12700F in performance tests.

Note that Core i7-12700F is a desktop processor while Core i9-12900HX is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-12700F and Core i9-12900HX, 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 i7-12700F
Core i7-12700F
Intel Core i9-12900HX
Core i9-12900HX

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.


4 1306 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 107 votes

Rate Core i9-12900HX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-12700F or Core i9-12900HX, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.