How so? The $289 i5-12600K (or $264 for the version without integrated graphics) looks to outperform the more expensive mid-range AMD parts in many tests. It's even at the top of the Performance-per-dollar chart on page two: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-12... It also leads the performance-per-dollar average in the conclusion.
The i5-12600K also has lower average power consumption than everything but the low-end Ryzen 5600X, but it beats the power power-hungry AMD processors in most benchmarks. This is really impressive. I don't understand why everyone is convinced the Alder Lake is inefficient.
> In both the laptop and server market, the thing that matters most is performance per watt rather than performance per dollar, and they aren't ahead in that metric.
The i5-12600K is the performance-per-watt leader in many (maybe most) of these benchmarks. The "Per Watt Results" chart on page 12 is confusing, but the i5-12600K is the performance/watt winner in maybe half or more of the tests: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-12...
I think the mid-range i5-12600K is the real star of this show, matching the performance of the AMD 5800X but at a significantly lower price. I think people are putting too much focus on the enthusiast-oriented i9-12900K which was designed to be a no-compromise performance chip without regard to efficiency.