# Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000



## btarunr (Jun 21, 2019)

Intel is embattled in the client-segment desktop processor business, with AMD's imminent launch of its 3rd generation Ryzen desktop processors. Intel's 9th generation Core processors may lose their competitiveness to AMD's offerings, and are expected to get relieved by the company's "Ice Lake" desktop processors only in 2020. Until then, Intel will market its processors through price-cuts, promotions, bundles, and focusing on their gaming prowess. The company will refresh its HEDT (high-end desktop) processor lineup some time in Q3-2019. According to Taiwan-based industry observer DigiTimes citing sources in the motherboard industry, Intel's immediate response to 3rd generation Ryzen will be a series of price-cuts to products in its client-segment DIY retail channel. 

According to these sources, prices of 9th generation Core processors could be cut by a minimum of 10 percent, and a maximum of 15 percent, varying by SKUs. This could see prices of popular gaming/enthusiast SKUs such as the Core i9-9900K, the i7-9700K, and the i5-9600K, drop by anywhere between $25 to $75. AMD is launching the Ryzen 9 3900X to compete with the i9-9900K, the Ryzen 7 3800X to compete with the i7-9700K, and the Ryzen 5 3600X to take on the i5-9600K. The three SKUs, according to AMD's internal testing, match the Intel chips at gaming, and beat them at content-creation tasks. At the heart of 3rd generation Ryzen processors is AMD's new Zen 2 microarchitecture, which brings significant IPC gains. AMD is also increasing core-counts on its mainstream desktop platform with the introduction of the Ryzen 9 family of 12-core and 16-core processors in the AM4 package. 



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Eskimonster (Jun 21, 2019)

Duplicate ?  









						Intel to slash desktop processor prices by up to 15%
					

Intel is planning to cut prices of its eighth- and ninth-generation desktop processors by 10-15% and has already notified its downstream PC and motherboard partners, according to sources from motherboard players.   https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190621PD205.html




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Dammeron (Jun 21, 2019)

Here we go... #RyzenEffect.


----------



## ChingDim (Jun 21, 2019)

Risen Ryzen


----------



## londiste (Jun 21, 2019)

15% price cuts would effectively move the Intel CPUs down a notch in AMD's comparisons.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 21, 2019)

Intel and price-cuts... I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Jun 21, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Intel and price-cuts... I'll believe it when I see it.



Agreed. If it does happen it means some deep changes are happening at Intel. Price cuts are in the company's ten commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Lower Prices of Thine CPUs"


----------



## laszlo (Jun 21, 2019)

if they reverse the numbers they had a chance to sell more ...


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jun 21, 2019)

I'll wait till this happen...


----------



## Mamya3084 (Jun 21, 2019)

I'll believe it when I see it, even old stock 8700k are still retail price.


----------



## SystemMechanic (Jun 21, 2019)

10% of a lot is still a lot..


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 21, 2019)

Too little too late.....for now. I am sure Intel will come back but I really do not see it happening anytime soon.


----------



## svan71 (Jun 21, 2019)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Agreed. If it does happen it means some deep changes are happening at Intel. Price cuts are in the company's ten commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Lower Prices of Thine CPUs"



Its below Thou shalt not have any god before profit and Thou shall bear false witness against thy neighbor AMD.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 21, 2019)

I thought Intel had a CPU shortage and the price of several of their SKUs are already much higher than MSRP, so how is lowering prices going to help them to be competitive, if there's no stock in the channel?

Also, so many religious people at TPU today...


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 21, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I thought Intel had a CPU shortage and the price of several of their SKUs are already much higher than MSRP, so how is lowering prices going to help them to be competitive, if there's no stock in the channel?
> 
> Also, so many religious people at TPU today...



The CPU shortage as i understand is more in the mobile and laptop markets than the desktop.


----------



## Mamya3084 (Jun 21, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I thought Intel had a CPU shortage and the price of several of their SKUs are already much higher than MSRP, so how is lowering prices going to help them to be competitive, if there's no stock in the channel?


"Massive price drop. 9900K, $189. Out of stock."
It'll just be a static Jpeg on all sites.
It's "Technically" on sale ;-)


----------



## ratirt (Jun 21, 2019)

What's the point of price cuts when there is nothing to buy? It's only good for statistics and bragging that Intel did cut the price but people can't get the CPU for that price cause it's all out


----------



## londiste (Jun 21, 2019)

At least in Europe Intel CPUs are in stock.
Looking at prices, right now there are 9600K for 240€, 9700K for 375€, 9900K for 490€, all available right now for what seems to be MSRP.


----------



## B-Real (Jun 21, 2019)

To be competitive agains newest Ryzen CPUs, they needed to cut prices by at least 25%. Higher power consumption, older technology. And AMD has their Zen+ and Zen models that are much cheaper and can have further price cut too. And there is the 3700X for $300, which I think can be OCd to 3800X level.


----------



## steve360 (Jun 21, 2019)

They can slash prices down as much as they want and I still wouldn't buy their rubbish.

AMD will be getting my money.

Intel wouldn't be in such a bad situation had they not been asleep at the wheel. They only have themselves to blame.


----------



## B-Real (Jun 21, 2019)

londiste said:


> 15% price cuts would effectively move the Intel CPUs down a notch in AMD's comparisons.


9900K would sell for $425, while there is a $400 3800X which is on par with single thread and better in multi-thread with less power consumption. And don't forget there is the 3700X for $300, which is probably capable of 3800X performance when OCd.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 21, 2019)

This was expected. Intel will not be selling cheaper because AMD want a high margin profit. If AMD tomorrow prices 3700x at $200 then the 9900k will be sold at that price level, coming next month, i already can see 9900k for around $330 or less.


----------



## atomek (Jun 21, 2019)

They should cut at least 30-40% to be competetive against new Ryzens. I was loyal to intel for 15 years, my last AMD was 386, now I'm switching again to AMD, as Intel is loosing performance each time new vulnerability is found - Intel is being hit much harder.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 21, 2019)

TLDR...is this how the thread went?

1. Zomg the sky is falling
2. Zomg I'll believe it when I see it
3. Zomg not enough, cut moar
4. Zomg its losing performance (was losing spelled right?)
5. Zomg if they just kept putting nails in the amd coffin

A quick glance to newegg shows their current lineup in stock. It also shows 9900k at 499 (on sale)... lower than its 549 msrp (which it was last week before I left on vacation). Surely it's not like that everywhere, but at least in one of the largest markets and largest etailer, it's there just now. So is 9600k (in stock on sale lower than msrp), 9700k, etc.

Anyway.... I have a feeling this wont be enough... but it's a good sign for consumers. Thanks amd for making something worthwhile!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 21, 2019)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Agreed. If it does happen it means some deep changes are happening at Intel. Price cuts are in the company's ten commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Lower Prices of Thine CPUs"


Complete rubbish! Intel, AMD and back-in-the-day, VIA and Cyrix all played the performance/price balancing game.. Intel and AMD are still doing it. This is just Intel responding to AMD's recent advances. IMHO, the price cuts have come very late.


----------



## londiste (Jun 21, 2019)

Intel CPUs don't really have MSRP as such. Intel lists Recommended Customer Price which is the price for 1000-unit quantities. In practice though that does end up as the price they are being sold so close enough: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=134896,186604,186605
9600K: $262-$263
9700K: $374-$385
9900K: $488-$499


----------



## Vario (Jun 21, 2019)

Btarunr uses a lot of sensationalist language.  For example 'embattled'.  I think this site needs to maintain its professionalism and avoid hyperbole, bias, and sensationalism when discussing the various brands.



			
				https://marketrealist.com/2019/05/amd-gains-pc-cpu-market-share-from-intel-with-ryzen/ said:
			
		

> According to data from Mercury Research, two generations of Ryzen increased AMD’s x86 desktop unit market share from 12.2% to 17.1% between the first quarters of 2018 and 2019. Its x86 notebook unit market share rose from 8% to 13.1% during the same period. Its market share rose as its rival Intel suffered supply shortages, which encouraged customers to switch to AMD’s CPUs.



83% market share is not 'embattled'.

embattled - adj.  "beset by problems or difficulties".  "experiencing a lot of problems and likely to be defeated or destroyed" https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/embattled
The term is hyperbole, implying that Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy because of a future yet to be released competitor's processor.

in another example


			
				
Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS
 said:
			
		

> With 7 nm AMD Ryzen 3000 processor family expected to make landfall early-July, and "Ice Lake" nowhere in sight, a panicked Intel announced the development of the Core i9-9900KS 8-core/16-thread LGA1151 processor. Based on the 14 nm "Coffee Lake Refresh" silicon, this processor has a base-frequency of 4.00 GHz, up from 3.60 GHz of the original; and an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, identical to the original i9-9900K, which has its max-turbo set at 5.00 GHZ, too. A revamped Turbo Boost algorithm is expected to yield significant gains in multi-core performance. The company didn't reveal TDP, pricing, or availability.



"Panic button".




			
				Alleged ASUS AMD X570 Motherboard Price-list Paints a Horror Story said:
			
		

> A reliable source based in Taiwan shared with us the price-list of upcoming AMD Ryzen 3000 X570 chipset motherboards by leading manufacturer ASUS. These MSRP prices in U.S. Dollars paint a grim picture of these boards being significantly pricier than previous-generation motherboards based on the AMD X470 chipset. We already got hints of AMD X570 motherboards being pricey when MSI CEO Charles Chiang, who is known for not mincing his words in public, made it clear that the industry is no longer seeing AMD as a value-alternative second-fiddle brand to Intel, and that AMD will use its performance leadership to command premium pricing for these motherboards, even though across generations, pricing of AMD processors are going to remain flat. The Ryzen 7 3700X, for example, is launching at exactly the same $329 launch price as the Ryzen 7 2700X.



"horror story" on a rumor.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 21, 2019)

Vario said:


> snip



Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.


----------



## Vario (Jun 21, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.


The same news article without the hyperbole would have been fine.  For example "Intel reduces prices by 15% in anticipation of competition from AMD's soon to be released Ryzen 2".


----------



## efikkan (Jun 21, 2019)

Why so gloomy?
Isn't competition what we've been waiting for? As I've said many times before; this is when the fun begins, and we should expect price drops and many good deals.

I would wish they cut a few dollars more, getting i9-9900K closer to $400 and i7-9700K closer to $300, but this is a start.


----------



## mahoney (Jun 21, 2019)

I wouldn't mind a locked 9900 for $380


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 21, 2019)

Vario said:


> The same news article without the hyperbole would have been fine.  For example "Intel reduces prices by 15% in anticipation of competition from AMD's soon to be released Ryzen 2".



look ultimately embattled just means "being in a difficult spot" which is what Intel is in or going to be in very soon, so honestly that is just a perfectly fine way to describe it.
sure we can distance ourselves entirely and make it all seem typed by robots, just cold facts but that does not make for nice reading material.


----------



## Crackong (Jun 21, 2019)

Can't wait to see a 9900T in Tiny office PCs for $300


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 21, 2019)

Vario said:


> Btarunr uses a lot of sensationalist language.  For example 'embattled'.  I think this site needs to maintain its professionalism and avoid hyperbole, bias, and sensationalism when discussing the various brands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


definitely something that emanates from his threads.tbh when I look at tpu's headlines I can already tell which ones were written by him.reminds of me of those clickbaity youtube channels.
tried to put him on ignore but that can't be done.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 21, 2019)

Crackong said:


> Can't wait to see a 9900T in Tiny office PCs for $300


While there are uses for these low wattage CPUs, avoid then whenever you can.
Even the small Dell OptiPlexes with i7-7700(65W) or i7-8700(65W) reach the power limit with just a little load, and the tiny boxes with 35W CPUs get incredible loud just from surfing the web.


----------



## trparky (Jun 21, 2019)

B-Real said:


> 9900K would sell for $425


Yes, it would be cool if Intel sold a 9900K for $425 but you still have the added cost of having to buy a high-end cooler to cool it.


B-Real said:


> while there is a $400 3800X which is on par with single thread and better in multi-thread with less power consumption.


And there you have it folks, less power consumption which leads to less heat which of course leads to not having to buy such beefy and expensive cooling systems which of course brings the cost down for many of us. AMD even provides a more than adequate cooler in the box with the processor, Intel doesn't and even when Intel does provide a cooler they generally suck whereas AMD's included coolers don't suck.


----------



## ironwolf (Jun 21, 2019)

trparky said:


> And there you have it folks, less power consumption which leads to less heat which of course leads to not having to buy such beefy and expensive cooling systems which of course brings the cost down for many of us. AMD even provides a more than adequate cooler in the box with the processor, Intel doesn't and even when Intel does provide a cooler they generally suck whereas AMD's included coolers don't suck.


This x100.  The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard.  That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day.  The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.

** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers


----------



## Steevo (Jun 21, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> I thought Intel had a CPU shortage and the price of several of their SKUs are already much higher than MSRP, so how is lowering prices going to help them to be competitive, if there's no stock in the channel?
> 
> Also, so many religious people at TPU today...




Are you not a believer heretic? Do you not pray to the silicon gods for higher IPC with low TDP?


Forgive him father for he has sinned, declaring the good works of advanced vector extensions dead, blasphemous speech against our savior SSE and bearing curses upon loose branch predictions causing our caches to miss. 

May the silicon clock well, may your leakage be low, voltages stable, and cooling be adequate. May you remember the sins of the past, forgetting the plugging in of your cooling fan, the melting of a TEC, the sins of mixing metals in a loop.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 21, 2019)

trparky said:


> Yes, it would be cool if Intel sold a 9900K for $425 but you still have the added cost of having to buy a high-end cooler to cool it.


well if you don't have a pc already then yes.$425 is still pretty high.I mean it's better than $330 3700x but it's not $100 better.I understand $50-75 over 3700x cause it's gonna be faster for high refresh gaming and supports higher momory requencies,that's it.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Jun 21, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Complete rubbish! Intel, AMD and back-in-the-day, VIA and Cyrix all played the performance/price balancing game.. Intel and AMD are still doing it. This is just Intel responding to AMD's recent advances. IMHO, the price cuts have come very late.



Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.

My very first _DIY_ PC was a Cyrix 6x86-P166 (my first actual x86 PC was a white-box 486SX). I haven't stopped shopping around since.

When Ryzen came along, sites rushed to claim Intel was slashing prices, but it never actually translated into anything of worth.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 21, 2019)

ironwolf said:


> This x100.  The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard.  That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day.  The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.
> 
> ** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers



Except the one I got, as it got stuck in the back plate it screws into and I could barely remove it after having tested everything before installing my AIO liquid cooler. I guess that was a fluke, but not a great experience. That said, I've had crap experiences with the push-pin coolers too, especially when you try to re-use them, as apparently they're only meant to be installed once... And third party coolers with really crap mounting systems... I think the old AM3 coolers were some of the best to install, but maybe not the best in terms of making good contact with the CPU.


----------



## Vario (Jun 21, 2019)

ironwolf said:


> This x100.  The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard.  That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day.  The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.
> 
> ** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers


On the other hand, its nice that Intel has had the same cooler hole spacing layout since 1156 for its mainstream platform.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Jun 21, 2019)

Good, I want an i7-8086K for cheaper price.


----------



## Jism (Jun 21, 2019)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.
> 
> My very first _DIY_ PC was a Cyrix 6x86-P166 (my first actual x86 PC was a white-box 486SX). I haven't stopped shopping around since.
> 
> When Ryzen came along, sites rushed to claim Intel was slashing prices, but it never actually translated into anything of worth.



It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/Via. Those times are coming to an end now. AMD always offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.

I mean i had one of the first K7's at 600Mhz, which was a 750Mhz chip downclocked to fill in the 600Mhz space. With a simple trick having it running on nearly 800Mhz, where do you find such value even in the old days?


----------



## londiste (Jun 21, 2019)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.


Intel did slash Pentium 4 prices when Athlon 64 became a contender.


Jism said:


> AMD always offered high value for it's price.


Remember the dud that was socket 754? Socket 939 and 940? All of which ended up being replaced by AM2. Athlon FX CPUs?


----------



## Vario (Jun 21, 2019)

Jism said:


> It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/Via. Those times are coming to an end now. AMD always offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.
> 
> I mean i had one of the first K7's at 600Mhz, which was a 750Mhz chip downclocked to fill in the 600Mhz space. With a simple trick having it running on nearly 800Mhz, where do you find such value even in the old days?


Huh how is the FX a good value?  If you bought a i7 920 back in 2008, or a 2500K or a 2600K in 2011, you could still be performing fine today, while the FX was obsolete before it was even released.  Imagine having a platform like the X58, that still performs well 11 years after building it!


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 21, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> Good, I want an i7-8086K for cheaper price.


me too.
I'd either go 9900k or 8086k if I were upgrading now.Could go for 9900 non-K too if I found one at killer price.



Jism said:


> It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/*Via*. *Those times are coming to an end now*.



Via ? are you talking now or two decades ago ?
also,nice way to greet "any" intel owners with you're "stupid enough" to buy it.though you're right,partially.seen people going with i5 7400 when 1600x was already out.but that's mostly ready made pc systems being pushed as first communion presents 


Jism said:


> AMD *always* offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.









Many would disagree,I'd agree but only up to a point.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 21, 2019)

LemmingOverlord said:


> I've been in the biz since 1992.


Oh, ok.  Me? 1980.



LemmingOverlord said:


> I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs


Then you haven't been paying attention. 

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Dammeron (Jun 21, 2019)

londiste said:


> Remember the dud that was socket 754? Socket 939 and 940? All of which ended up being replaced by AM2. Athlon FX CPUs?



Socket 939 was a dud? I guess my A64 Winchester and A64 X2 Venice that kicked Intel's ass were rubbish...


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 21, 2019)

pretty sure they should be dropping the HEDT chips, if they haven't outright abandoned them altogether.


----------



## londiste (Jun 21, 2019)

Dammeron said:


> Socket 939 was a dud? I guess my A64 Winchester and A64 X2 Venice that kicked Intel's ass were rubbish...


I didn't mean S939 was a dud. Indeed, that was the best one of the three sockets AMD had at the time. S940 was... not the best value for the price. S754 was marketed heavily enough for the first year of S939 and it wasn't clear which socket would win out. Basically a clusterfuck.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jun 21, 2019)

Glad to see INTEL might be looking to cut prices for once but why would anyone buy Processors that require micro updates and patches to fix hardware level vulnerabilities at this point.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 21, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> me too.
> I'd either go 9900k or 8086k if I were upgrading now.Could go for 9900 non-K too if I found one at killer price.
> 
> 
> ...



Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jun 21, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> The CPU shortage as i understand is more in the mobile and laptop markets than the desktop.



No, it's everywhere!
But with 14nm offloading, moving chipsets to 22nm and amd selling like hot cakes = lower demand = price drops possible.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 22, 2019)

Thanks AMD!  But even with this % off I dont think a $800AUS 9900K is a good price compared to my $380 2700X some how


----------



## matar (Jun 22, 2019)

10-15% That’s not enough...


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (*1,2v to 1,26v*). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.



Why do you always have to be full of nonsense everywhere you show your face? It doesn't help your credibility, in fact, it makes you look like a troll.

Take note of this vcore, and that is with -2AVX and a rigid LLC setting. A 'tiny' gap it seems between this and your wild claim, no?


----------



## ypsylon (Jun 22, 2019)

I think Intel got numbers wrong. Instead 51 they got 15%... 

If they did that, then yeah they could stem the tide.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without *needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps*.


but that's the thing about gaming,compare 9900k v. 9700k,the usage on 16t vs 8t is lower.It's like taking a 900nm car for a cruise around the town.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Take note of this vcore, and that is with -2AVX and a rigid LLC setting. A 'tiny' gap it seems between this and your wild claim, no?


Let's look at Intel's ark page for that CPU...








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				



Weird, no VID specs listed. The reason for this is simple; Each die tested/binned/sold can have a varying voltage requirement. I don't know where that graphic is from, but it doesn't prove your point. And to be fair the vast majority of the last 3 generations of CPU's from Intel have had stock voltages under 1.3v, most of them them well under.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Let's look at Intel's ark page for that CPU...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's from silicon lottery,if they can't hit 1.2-1.26v on their bins then don't expect many 9700k's in the wild.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> that's from slilicon lottery,if they can't hit 1.2-1.26v on their bins then don't expect many 9700k's in the wild.


Link?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

siliconlottery.com

and stock all core boost for 9700k is 4.6ghz


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jun 22, 2019)

If this really happens, then Intel will once again be a no-brainer choice...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> siliconlottery.com


Oh you mean this one?;








						Intel Core i7 9700K @ 4.9GHz Boxed Processor
					

Intel Core i7 9700K Overclocked and Binned CPU.




					siliconlottery.com
				



How about this one?;








						Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.0GHz Boxed Processor
					

Intel Core i7 9700K Overclocked and Binned CPU.




					siliconlottery.com
				



Or perhaps this one?;








						Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.1GHz Boxed Processor
					

Intel Core i7 9700K Overclocked and Binned CPU.




					siliconlottery.com
				



And this one?;








						Intel Core i7 9700K @ 5.2GHz Boxed Processor
					

Intel Core i7 9700K Overclocked and Binned CPU.




					siliconlottery.com
				




Are we noticing a trend with each progressive page? While we see an increase of price, we also see an increase of voltage, meaning that to get to the promised performance levels, one is required to overvolt and OC. While not a problem for most, @Manu_PT 's point was that at stock(or near stock) voltages the CPU in question performs well and without using too much power. @Vayra86 's response was a bit harsh and not all that accurate. And the example offered certainly didn't make his point for him. In fact it kinda worked against that point..


----------



## john_ (Jun 22, 2019)

I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Jun 22, 2019)

HAH only 15%


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jun 22, 2019)

john_ said:


> I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.


Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to dominate (Turd)Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still smash 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to *compete well against* Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still *compete with* 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)


Fixed your statement so it is less childish and fanboy-like. Take note for future.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Oh you mean this one?;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no,he said 4.9,so not at stock.



HenrySomeone said:


> Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to dominate (Turd)Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still smash 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)





lexluthermiester said:


> Fixed your statement so it is less childish and fanboy-like. Take note for future.


let's both maybe wait for tests from gamersnexus before we do that,huh?


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jun 22, 2019)

Sure, we can wait, but all the telltale signs of what I said are already there - Zen2 barely matches CoffeeLake according to AMD's own claims...in Cinebench, lol! If we look at current chips that are roughly matched in it, we can see, that Intel wins in everything else and absolutely dominates in gaming. A good example is 2400g vs (non-k) 6700:


----------



## efikkan (Jun 22, 2019)

john_ said:


> I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.


People should buy which ever product fits their needs the best at that time, for some that would be Intel, for others that would be AMD.

AMD have a huge fan base, and I expect them to sell well among custom builders. AMD's continued success is mostly dependent on themselves.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> no,he said 4.9,so not at stock.


Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:


Manu_PT said:


> 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v).


Which is not only possible but indeed likely.


----------



## PanicLake (Jun 22, 2019)

First the price rises claiming shortage, now they "slash" prices... basically back to what they where?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:
> 
> Which is not only possible but indeed likely.


you just looked at silicon lottery bins,the cherry picked ones require +1.3v for 4.9ghz
the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jun 22, 2019)

efikkan said:


> People should buy which ever product fits their needs the best at that time, *for some that would be Intel, for others that would be AMD*.
> 
> AMD have a huge fan base, and I expect them to sell well among custom builders. AMD's continued success is mostly dependent on themselves.


In principle, that is true, but in reality, Intel is better (or would be better) for over 90% of people. AMD is only really better in some very limited scenarios, mostly for workstations where a lot of rendering type loads are being done, then sth like a 2950x (or a cheaper 1920x or even 1700 on the budget side) can somewhat shine over a comparably priced Intel


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

@lexluthermiester  Do you even read before you start responding... or stop to wonder why the response ís 'harsh'. You guys should know by now that I'm allergic to bullshit. Just own up to a mistake that's made and stop spreading BS. Inflated claims like this are not helping anyone, and you coming in with misguided 'moderation' is probably even worse.



lexluthermiester said:


> Oh you mean [...snip worthless examples]
> 
> *@Manu_PT[/USER] 's point was that at stock(or near stock) voltages...*



Really now?



Manu_PT said:


> Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. *8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v*). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.



Crawl back into your caves and let this go now please. Thanks & have a good weekend.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> In principle, that is true, but in reality, Intel is better (or would be better) for over 90% of people. AMD is only really better in some very limited scenarios, mostly for workstations where a lot of rendering type loads are being done, then sth like a 2950x (or a cheaper 1920x or even 1700 on the budget side) can somewhat shine over a comparably priced Intel


let's maybe aviod poor wording in the future,for the sake of us all having to read it.

in general this is true,in gaming 8700k beats 2700x consistently,just look at those differences in minimums in 1080p testing.










2700x isn't that great ecept for rendering



			https://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/2018/cfl_r/vs/9600k_2700x_oc.svg


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> @lexluthermiester Do you even read before you start responding...


Certainly did. Yes, yes.


Vayra86 said:


> or stop to wonder why the response ís 'harsh'.


No wondering needed. You can be a bit of a dink sometimes. Not all the time, but in this instance yeah.


Vayra86 said:


> I'm allergic to bullshit.



So what you're saying is, you're allergic to yourself then?


Vayra86 said:


> Really now?


Yuppers.

You seem to have missed the context on this one. Manu's point was well within the realm of reality and possibility. Your misunderstanding and overreaction was the problem not his statement.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

here comes cascade quoting,he's mad.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> you just looked at silicon lottery bins,the cherry picked ones require +1.3v for 4.9ghz
> the hell is wrong with you?


Clearly context is being missed by you and Vayra86..


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Certainly did. Yes, yes.
> 
> No wondering needed. You can be a bit of a dink sometimes. Not all the time, but in this instance yeah.
> 
> ...



I'll wait for your examples and sources of 9700K's that do 4.9 Ghz all core under 1.2-1.26V okay?

By the way, you're on the shortlist for ignore pretty quickly this way. YOU, speaking of context... you drunk?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Clearly context is being missed by you and Vayra86..


in what context is 4.9 1.2v the same as 4.9 1.33v ?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> here comes cascade quoting,he's mad.



I actually did want to add 'Inb4 multiquote spree' in my last post. I'll store that crystal ball now 

Good entertainment nonetheless. But it has gone on far too long already now.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> here comes cascade quoting,he's mad.


Nope, not at all. I'm actually quite amused by the fact that the two of you seem to have missed a very simple point.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Nope, not at all. I'm actually quite amused by the fact that the two of you seem to have missed a very simple point.


what is the point then ? would you like to tell us the point now ?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> in what context is 4.9 1.2v the same as 4.9 1.33v ?


How about that very fact that siliconlottery.com exists? The variability is silicon. For example, some CPU's OC better on reduced voltage rather than increased.

Understand the context yet? Manu's statement was valid and you two are over-reacting.



Vayra86 said:


> Good entertainment nonetheless. But it has gone on far too long already now.


Agreed on both points. Let's let it go.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:
> 
> Which is not only possible but indeed likely.



No it is *not* likely, it is a BS statement that not even a company that _specifically sells overclocked CPUs and does additional binning_ cannot produce - not even remotely close in fact.

The fact that you started rambling about stock is completely out of context here. But in your tiny mind, anything YOU say is somehow relevant, regardless of the discussion you're getting into. And then you act all arrogant about it as if the rest was talking out of their ass.

Horrible, horrible behavior.



lexluthermiester said:


> Agreed on both points. Let's let it go.



You had that chance a page ago but decided to start 'moderating' - and not even just me, but other posts too. Disgusting.

What's next, you're going to tell us you were joking and that this was super obvious 'how could we miss that'? You've done it before. Blegh.

Here's what you should do: reflect on this conversation and indeed: do not try to get the last word. The only apt response here is mea culpa.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> How about that very fact that siliconlottery.com exists? The variability is silicon.


yes,and the point of their existence is selling better silicon,not worse.

I don't know why you're trying to be deliberately vague.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> The fact that you started rambling about stock is completely out of context here.


It was meant to be a point of reference, which you clearly missed.


Vayra86 said:


> But in your tiny mind, anything YOU say is somehow relevant, regardless of the discussion you're getting into. And then you act all arrogant about it as if the rest was talking out of their ass.


Um, ok. Rage much?


Vayra86 said:


> Horrible, horrible behavior.


Irony.


cucker tarlson said:


> yes,and the point of their existence is selling better silicon,not worse.


Their existence is to provide guaranteed CPU performance at certain specs through testing. That doesn't mean that other people can't get their own results, or even better results at different specs.

I'm out as the two of you seem to be letting your pride react instead of using critical, rational thinking.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

Don't let the door hit you in the ass while you do


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Their existence is to provide guaranteed CPU performance at certain specs through testing. That doesn't mean that other people can't get their own results, or even better results at different specs.


while it doesn't exclude a person getting lucky,it does exclude other ppl finding 9700k hits 4.9 at much lower voltage *in general*.
if SL can't get their 9700k's to run 4.9 at 1.20-1.26v.,or those that do are later what becomes their top 10% 5.2ghz bins,then the majority won't.You get it now?


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jun 22, 2019)

Hi guys. First of all it is great to see that competition works 

But i want to see real Benchmark results. With all the surrounding facts listed. Especially how the 9900k does compared to the 8 core Zen 2. But with the power draw shown over time.

The 9900k i run draws roughly 180W with my computational load and all settings at Standard in the Bios. 

I want to know what the official intel spec is, on how long the CPU is allowed to run at a specific power draw. Same from AMD and then compare them under the specified conditions. It should be done on at least 10 CPUs of each model. More would be even better. Then we have a good average. After that you can go with overclocking and power draw shown. 

You have to get the right settings in the Bios for each Board you use, since the standard settings ignore the intel specs regarding power draw.

All this seems to be an awful lot of work. I really hope someone or even a group has the resources for that. 

After such a broad benchmark run we should have some idea what variances are there at the silicon quality regarding stock performance within the specs, and what to expect from overclocking.


----------



## JB_Gamer (Jun 22, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Intel and price-cuts... I'll believe it when I see it.



I will not even look for it


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> let's maybe aviod poor wording in the future,for the sake of us all having to read it.
> 
> in general this is true,in gaming 8700k beats 2700x consistently,just look at those differences in minimums in 1080p testing.
> 
> ...


Maybe if people were not so freak in polar.

At 1080p 144hz ONLY then intel is king lower Hz it doesn't matter for 98% If people.

At 1440p it hardly matters.

At 4k60hz an Fx8350 will keep up with a 9900K never mind ryzen, CPU matters little Atm.

The cuts are a start.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> At 4k60hz an Fx8350 will keep up with a 9900K never mind ryzen, CPU matters little Atm.


bold claim,please prove it with tests.there's so many games that fx is not even close to 60 that what you're claiming here seems pretty incredible to me.how does it keep up with 9900k at 4k60 when it'll regularly drop into 40s at 1080p



Spoiler












						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 33) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?



					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 34) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 35) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 36) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 37) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 38) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?




					www.purepc.pl
				











						Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 40) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?



					www.purepc.pl
				









in the video at 1440p you can already see ryzen is a few fps slower consistently,and that's stock 1080Ti with ultra preset.For a person who runs 1440p with an oc'd 1080ti and performance optimized settings the 1080p result is much more relevant.
please accept that your subjective opinion is not equal to peformance numbers.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> bold claim,please prove it with tests.
> at 1440p you can already see ryzen is a few fps slower consistently,and that's stock 1080Ti with ultra preset.For a person who runs 1440p with an oc'd 1080ti and performance optimized settings he 1080p result is much more relevant.
> please accept that your subjective opinion is not equal to peformance numbers.


I can offer a Fx8370 and a Vega 64 for testing. Only have a 1440p display here. And the 9900k is currently without a mainboard (molten EPS power plug --> RMA). If someone could help me to set up the super resolution thing i can try to compare the 4790k to the Fx8370 with the Vega 64. That should give some results. But what games / benchmarks to use? Win10 1903, with it's updated scheduler should help a little as well.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Aerpoweron said:


> I can offer a Fx8370 and a Vega 64 for testing. Only have a 1440p display here. And the 9900k is currently without a mainboard (molten EPS power plug --> RMA). If someone could help me to set up the super resolution thing i can try to compare the 4790k to the Fx8370 with the Vega 64. That should give some results. But what games / benchmarks to use? Win10 1903 i hope.


that would be a pretty interesting read actuallly if you could make a thread comparing fx to 4790k at 1440p.
the bigger question that "what game" is what testing place in that game.

frankly I found my 4790k inadequate for gtx 1080 at 1440p in some scenarios.


----------



## damric (Jun 22, 2019)

Intel should unlock back the base clock overclocking abilities on the non-k skus. That would make me happy. Z170 is so much more fun than 200 or 300 because of that.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> that would be a pretty interesting read actuallly if you could make a thread comparing fx to 4790k at 1440p.
> the bigger question that "what game" is what testing place in that game.
> 
> frankly I found my 4790k inadequate for gtx 1080 at 1440p in some scenarios.


I will try to keep in mind to make such a thread. But i have to test it with most of the Hardware around the CPUs as equal as possible. I would go for 16GB of DDR3 1600MHz memory. 2 or 4 slots? Have to see what i have. I need some setup time as well. And if the Mainboard for the 9900k is back i could include the i9 as well. 
Even tho the 4790k is limited in some cases, it still hold up pretty well for gaming. 
You can also take a look at my i9 9900k thread, i would be happy about any ideas.


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Too little too late.....for now. I am sure Intel will come back but I really do not see it happening anytime soon.



Too little too late? you can't buy a 3000 series Ryzen yet, hec they haven't even been comprehensively reviewed by 3rd parties yet.

I am all for AMD hitting back and hitting back hard, but I'll believe the "RIP Intel" sentiment when I see it.


----------



## HwGeek (Jun 22, 2019)

Who would like to work as the Salesmen department of Intel? How would you close CPU deals in today's market situation?
Just look at the leaked prices of the New 64C EPYCs .


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> bold claim,please prove it with tests.there's so many games that fx is not even close to 60 that what you're claiming here seems pretty incredible to me.how does it keep up with 9900k at 4k60 when it'll regularly drop into 40s at 1080p
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Opinion, I used an fx with this monitor , at 4k ultra settings, almost all games (AAA new releases , I played as they came out , mostly fps) are GPU limited not AT ALL CPU.
I agree it's a bold claim but none the less GPU bottleneck Is what it is.
My Fx lives on, years after I bought it but not in my handds unfortunately.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 22, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Too little too late.....for now. I am sure Intel will come back but I really do not see it happening anytime soon.


Premature speculation. Heres a tissue to clean up after yourself.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> that would be a pretty interesting read actuallly if you could make a thread comparing fx to 4790k at 1440p.
> the bigger question that "what game" is what testing place in that game.
> 
> frankly I found my 4790k inadequate for gtx 1080 at 1440p in some scenarios.


1440p why you leveraging that shit 4k they will be equal at 1440p there's a difference that 98% of the pc buying world wont notice or care about because they care more about shoes and cars and cost matters most. Simple.

What they're best served by matters nought.

And quit with the trolling bullshit a 2700x is not just good for rendering you name brand epeen snob.
Get on topic, price cuts are needed, good for all, as is choice.
Go Intel, fight on.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> you name brand epeen snob.


go on.

I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k,got a bunch of insults in response.typical.
of course if fx can't deliver 60 fps in every game it won't do that at 4K.what is so difficult for you to understand.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 1440p why you leveraging that shit 4k they will be equal at 1440p there's a difference that 98% of the pc buying world wont notice or care about because they care more about shoes and cars and cost matters most. Simple.
> 
> What they're best served by matters nought.
> 
> ...


lol...

At 4k a cpu doesnt make nearly as much of a difference as 2560x1440 or 1080p. That said...its still putting a glass ceiling on a GPU. If it hits 60 fps, great. That doesnt mean it's still not holding things back which is not optimal. If you are running 4k you have AT LEAST at 1080ti or 2080/2080ti which the fx chokes on at any res. 

Fx was a turd when it was released and is now a dried out cow patty. Sandybridge can still beat it, lol, and we know it lacks in CPU horsepower.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> go on.
> 
> I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k,got a bunch of insults in response.typical.
> of course if fx can't deliver 60 fps in every game it won't do that at 4K.what is so difficult for you to understand.


Take it to pm its off topic non-sense I apologize for calling you names ,I got excited. I'm sorry this topic is not worth the effort in this thread and time though.

You also pick and choose what to reply to so whatever.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Take it to pm its off topic non-sense I apologize for calling you names ,I got excited. I'm sorry this topic is not worth the effort in this thread and time though.
> *
> You also pick and choose what to reply to so whatever.*


I never replied to the statement that "98% won't notice the difference at 1440p" cause it's so ridiculous.
first of all,you can never prove what the actual number of people is.you say it's 98%,I say it's 50%,neither of us knows what the number is.Plus it's irrelevant to the point I was making.I'm a high refresh user myself,what I'm writing concerns me.
and second of all making a general assumption that 1440p is the point where the gpu starts to matter almost exclusively is either too general or just plain wrong.I just gave youi an example - running 1440p but not at ultra.I hardly ever run ultra preset if I can't hit my desired framerate.

no offence taken about "brand snob",I could call you the same thing since all you ever do is defend amd with wild,unsubstantiated claims.

every page of every cpu review is constructed in such a way that a cpu is tested using just about the heaviest scenario.that concerns gaming as much as every other ulitity/productivity test.a home/gaming user like me will run into cpu bottlenecks in gaming much,much more often thatn they will in any other part of a full review.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

Ok, I'm back in for this one...


cucker tarlson said:


> I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k


Try Youtube








This one shows 4k comparisons. Clearly the bottleneck is the GPU.








In this one, the tests are run at 1080p, both the 2700k and the FX are still not bottlenecking very much.








And another here.

His claim was not that bold. FX CPU's are viable for gaming at 4k if you have the GPU to push that res and you tweak your game settings a bit.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, I'm back in for this one...
> 
> Try Youtube
> 
> ...


before I waste my time watching this,how many of those are actually comparing 9900k to fx?

just the first one says "980ti". please,you've embarassed yourself enough.

the third one is not even a comparison,it's just running in-game benchmarks on fx.and it says 39 min. fps in rotr.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> before I waste my time watching this,how many of those are actually comparing 9900k to fx?


None, I was responding to your discussion with @theoneandonlymrk about the FX statement. You asked him for supporting information. I delivered.


cucker tarlson said:


> just the first one says "980ti".


The context was gaming on FX@4k.


cucker tarlson said:


> please,you've *embarrassed* yourself enough.


Yeah, *that* is what happened...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> None, I was responding to your discussion with @theoneandonlymrk about the FX statement. You asked him for supporting information. I delivered.
> 
> The context was gaming on FX@4k.
> 
> Yeah, *that* is what happened...


this is too hard for me.it's like I'm talking to a child.you delivered nothing that was really relevant.

the context was not "4k gaming on fx",of course not.

it was 9900k vs fx at 4K,and of course using a 980Ti is a scenario that one may throw away instantly,980Ti is like 1660Ti now.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 22, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Why do you always have to be full of nonsense everywhere you show your face? It doesn't help your credibility, in fact, it makes you look like a troll.
> 
> Take note of this vcore, and that is with -2AVX and a rigid LLC setting. A 'tiny' gap it seems between this and your wild claim, no?
> 
> View attachment 125477



Thats an awful CPU right there. My 9700k does 4,9ghz at 1,24v ez pz.

We could say I have a golden sample but then we go on ocnet to the 9700k owners lounge and realize most are doing 5ghz with 1,3 to 1,35.

Talking about non sense, you the one spreading it on this forum everyday. You even said you added me to the ignore list but there you are.

9700k is easy to cool, lack of HT makes it easy to reach clock speeds with less voltage. Deal with it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> this is too hard for me.it's like I'm talking to a child.you delivered nothing that was really relevant.


I'm not the one hurling insults.  Just sad...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> We could say I have a golden sample but then we go on ocnet to the 9700k owners lounge and realize most are doing 5ghz with 1,3 to 1,35.


link


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> link




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9q2g28


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9q2g28


Jesus Christ the link to the ocn owners lounge,not a random hwmonitor reading.
you understand why me and Vayra are find it hard now?
this is not even 4.9ghz.
I'm done here.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> link











						Overclocking i7-9700k Results and Questions
					

There seems to be no specific general thread about overclocking the i7-9700k so I thought I'd create a master thread where people can post their experiences and their questions about overclocking this specific processor.  If you have a successful overclock, please post the following...




					www.overclock.net
				




You can be on denial or damage control if you want bud. It is what it is.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Overclocking i7-9700k Results and Questions
> 
> 
> There seems to be no specific general thread about overclocking the i7-9700k so I thought I'd create a master thread where people can post their experiences and their questions about overclocking this specific processor.  If you have a successful overclock, please post the following...
> ...


okay,I skimmed quickly,I can see nothing that would prove what you said,that is most 9700ks do 4.9 at 1.2-1.26v
quite the contrary,most need 1.3v or more.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 22, 2019)

It may come as a surprise to some but this is not a private chatroom, most of the last page has nothing to do with the topic so a couple of you either need to take it to PM's, walk away or start your own thread, any more of this tooing and froing and my patience will evaporate...………. thank you.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> okay,I skimmed quickly,I can see nothing that would prove what you said,that is most 9700ks do 4.9 at 1.2-1.26v
> quite the contrary,most need 1.3v or more.



Its common knowledge that link just confirmed it. The vast majority needs 1.3V and up and thats no different than your average 8700K.

Yawn 

EDIT point taken tatty


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Jesus Christ the link to the ocn owners lounge,not a random hwmonitor reading.
> you understand why me and Vayra are find it hard now?
> this is not even 4.9ghz.
> I'm done here.



Good because the back and forth childish banter going on in this thread of which you are a part is just embarrassing.
One person suggested pm/dm's but nope, keep going on right here with all the whining, jeez.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I never replied to the statement that "98% won't notice the difference at 1440p" cause it's so ridiculous.
> first of all,you can never prove what the actual number of people is.you say it's 98%,I say it's 50%,neither of us knows what the number is.Plus it's irrelevant to the point I was making.I'm a high refresh user myself,what I'm writing concerns me.
> and second of all making a general assumption that 1440p is the point where the gpu starts to matter almost exclusively is either too general or just plain wrong.I just gave youi an example - running 1440p but not at ultra.I hardly ever run ultra preset if I can't hit my desired framerate.
> 
> ...


What are you on about, someone offers you pm.

I get a page of bullshit off topic , this is an Intel topic you started mentioning amd, I replied to your bullshit 


"R2700X is only good for rendering" comment for a somehow prooveable 90% of people implied by him and you.

Your misleading with bullshit while trolling via Google, Im on a phone and would rather be ON topic.

Your a high Hz squed perspective gamer \2% and you think you represent the people, divisional delusional bs.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> What are you on about, someone offers you pm.
> 
> I get a page of bullshit off topic , this is an Intel topic you started mentioning amd, I replied to your bullshit
> 
> ...



Well, keep in mind we are talking about top end MSDT, so that already covers the top 5-10% of the marlet only, so in that sense the 2% high refresh market share is a relative 30-40% share among high end CPUs. Its wrong to apply average / casualuse cases as blanket statement no matter what.

To get on topic; that is the exact reason Intel can keep hold of that PCMR gaming fortress, and its why Ryzen 3 is hype material; a major clock bump is in the cards.

Even AMD does not deny that they need to up the gaming perf!


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 22, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.



It's really not ok in proper journalism to project what you personally anticipate either.

But I am beating a dead horse.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> What are you on about, someone offers you pm.
> 
> I get a page of bullshit off topic , this is an Intel topic you started mentioning amd, I replied to your bullshit
> 
> ...


I'm "trolling via google" ?
also,you may wanna read the thread if you think I mentioned amd first.the friggin title is "response to ryzen 3000",I wonder what brand that is.

and about that 98%,I already told you,no one knows how much it is,and that includes you.can you agree that high refresh gaming is a thing and it's quite popular or are you gonna deny that too?

Plus I don't know about the rules,but isn't calling my posts "trolling" constantly a form of trolling too? How can you expect me to even respond to your posts coherently if in every one of them you include words like "trolling" ?


----------



## FameOfTheWolf (Jun 22, 2019)

I just got a 9700k. I hope they drop the prices so I can return it still and get a better price. Technically I got it a pretty decent price of 375.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 22, 2019)

Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> okay,I skimmed quickly,I can see nothing that would prove what you said,that is most 9700ks do 4.9 at 1.2-1.26v
> quite the contrary,most need 1.3v or more.





Vayra86 said:


> Its common knowledge that link just confirmed it. The vast majority needs 1.3V and up and thats no different than your average 8700K.
> 
> Yawn
> 
> EDIT point taken tatty



I think you are both trolling, considering 90% of the users on that thread had 5ghz+ overclocks. But I won´t even bother with it anymore, it´s all on the thread, read properly. Have a nice weekend.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> I think you are both trolling, considering 90% of the users on that thread had 5ghz+ overclocks. But I won´t even bother with it anymore, it´s all on the thread, read properly. Have a nice weekend.


oh please don't leave.

on topic though,yes,they all had 5ghz,but hardly anyone needed less that 1.30v plus change.those that did used higher avx offset or non avx load.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 22, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.


As new products enter the market, the market will adjust.
But older processing nodes or older architectures doesn't necessary make them inferior. If that were the case, Turing and Pascal would be really bad, but they're not.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 22, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.


the product will usually sell for whatever ppl are going to pay for it.I've seen many times prices don't fall even if msrp is adjusted.


----------



## voltage (Jun 22, 2019)

Just bring 10th Gen already, been waiting for YEARS for it. Come on INTEL, release it already.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 22, 2019)

efikkan said:


> As new products enter the market, the market will adjust.
> But older processing nodes or older architectures doesn't necessary make them inferior. If that were the case, Turing and Pascal would be really bad, but they're not.



Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.


----------



## StrayKAT (Jun 23, 2019)

voltage said:


> Just bring 10th Gen already, been waiting for YEARS for it. Come on INTEL, release it already.



I think 10 calls for something more revolutionary across the board..with even more upgrades besides 7nm or PCIE 4.. But they'll line up all of their ducks in a row soon enough.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 23, 2019)

15% is shit. Hell, the taxes in EU and/or Asia can go up to 40% (VAT; Import; etc)


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 23, 2019)

wolf said:


> Too little too late? you can't buy a 3000 series Ryzen yet, hec they haven't even been comprehensively reviewed by 3rd parties yet.
> 
> I am all for AMD hitting back and hitting back hard, but I'll believe the "RIP Intel" sentiment when I see it.



What I am talking about is the innovation race. In consumer electronics it is the number one thing that attracts new users. AMD has been hitting it out of the park with their releases of truly new products. In the mind of the average user these are real; PCI-E 4.0, WIFI 6, 12 and 16 core desktop CPUs, Google Stadia, EPYC, TR4, Navi (which is priced incorrectly according to leaks). In reference to this article Intel is responding (in the short term) with weak attempts. They should have dropped prices months or even years ago. The biggest thing for me is the interface in the CPU package itself for Ryzen2 processors is purportedly running at PCI_E 4.0 which if is true and combined with 70MBs of Cache is some serious throughput.


----------



## StrayKAT (Jun 23, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> What I am talking about is the innovation race. In consumer electronics it is the number one thing that attracts new users. AMD has been hitting it out of the park with their releases of truly new products. In the mind of the average user these are real; PCI-E 4.0, WIFI 6, 12 and 16 core desktop CPUs, Google Stadia, EPYC, TR4, Navi (which is priced incorrectly according to leaks). In reference to this article Intel is responding (in the short term) with weak attempts. They should have dropped prices months or even years ago. The biggest thing for me is the interface in the CPU package itself for Ryzen2 processors is purportedly running at PCI_E 4.0 which if is true and combined with 70MBs of Cache is some serious throughput.



The reason Intel didn't innovate here is because they didn't have to. There was no race at all, and they were going to attract users either way. Hopefully now that AMD is making a push again, it'll be a good thing even for Intel.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 23, 2019)

StrayKAT said:


> The reason Intel didn't innovate here is because they didn't have to. *There was no race at all,* and they were going to attract users either way.


That's not exactly true. They need to give existing customers good reasons to upgrade.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 23, 2019)

Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15%


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jun 23, 2019)

IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.


_Faster_? That will probably depend on the use case, and you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out. So far AMD have shown performance parity in Cinebench, which is known to be favorable towards Zen(1).


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 23, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.



No Intel board offers PCIe 4, so a more valid comparison is of Z390 vs expensive B450 boards.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 23, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.



Again, I think people will be willing to pay a very small premium for X570 as it's more advanced than Intel's latest. It has PCIE4, which can't be found anywhere else, and the whole range is being given the full premium treatment by board partners as if the chipset is a generation up.


----------



## Blueberries (Jun 23, 2019)

I'm speculating, but there was probably a "gentleman's agreement" between Intel and AMD to withhold PCIe 4+ chipsets until the second half of this year, and we'll see 4.0 or 5.0 from Intel shortly, and a CPU performance bump along with it.

On the other hand, AMD is the underdog, and it's refreshing to see them challenge Intel again. It took Ryzen 3 iterations to actually "ryze," but we're finally seeing Su's legacy.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 23, 2019)

efikkan said:


> _Faster_? That will probably depend on the use case, and you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out. So far AMD have shown performance parity in Cinebench, which is known to be favorable towards Zen(1).



So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 23, 2019)

efikkan said:


> _Faster_? That will probably depend on the use case, and *you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out*.


This! Seriously. Everyone, the actual numbers are not known yet. Let's reserve conclusions and judgments until we see the actual performance..



Shatun_Bear said:


> So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.


Context much?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 23, 2019)

I seriously doubt any prospective buyer is actually looking at what's on offer and even has a second thought about PCIe 4.0 or 3.0. Its one of those things that is compatible anyway - if you worry about this, the last PC you built was something pre- PCIe 2.0. Bandwidth hasn't been an issue for decades.



Shatun_Bear said:


> Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.



It is not a relevant metric when comparing products - you use the actual performance it gives and the characteristics it gives that under (power, heat), and in that sense, for 90% of use cases and people, these CPUs are virtually identical. At that point, the primary trigger becomes price - which is why Intel can still have an effect doing what they do now, even if by raw numbers the product 'is inferior' or 'on an inferior node'. The % of users that push a CPU to the limit is actually pretty low. Those who emphasize the need for CPU perf, know what they're looking for, so they dó notice it.

The thing that will really sell Ryzen 3 is the core count gap - its a very noticeable, visible way of telling buyers 'this one is better'. More cores at the same price. And the typical Intel safe haven of single thread dominance (clocks) is now gone too - another important number on the spec sheet.

Heck, its what AMD does with GPU - the problem there is that for gaming, GPUs are stressed constantly and not 'bursty' like CPUs tend to be, so people tend to notice the efficiency gap in a big way (more noise etc.) and load a GPU to cap much more often, which also highlights the performance gap.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2019)

If only more cores was actually better for most people...

The real deal is similar/better performance at a lower price...core count be damned.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Jun 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.



..not for running emulators they're not. Intel is still king in that particular usage scenario....and its looking like that will still be the case after Zen 2 launches.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 23, 2019)

StrayKAT said:


> The reason Intel didn't innovate here is because they didn't have to. There was no race at all, and they were going to attract users either way.



Come on we both know that's at at least partially untrue, right now they have nothing that can fight Zen 2 in all metrics. And that's not because they don't have to, it's because they simply can't deliver something markedly better than Skylake era products. Markers of this inability, i.e 10nm, can be found from way back when Zen 2 was a pipe dream.

No matter how much resources you have, innovation wont ever be a given.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 23, 2019)

The Quim Reaper said:


> ..not for running emulators they're not. Intel is still king in that particular usage scenario....and its looking like that will still be the case after Zen 2 launches.


How did you arrive at those conclusions?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Again, I think people will be willing to pay a very small premium for X570 as it's more advanced than Intel's latest. It has PCIE4, which can't be found anywhere else, and the whole range is being given the full premium treatment by board partners as if the chipset is a generation up.


entry level x570 boards cost over 200 euros, as much as asrock taichi.that's far from a small premium.


----------



## StrayKAT (Jun 23, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Come on we both know that's at at least partially untrue, right now they have nothing that can fight Zen 2 in all metrics. And that's not because they don't have to, it's because they simply can't deliver something markedly better than Skylake era products. Markers of this inability, i.e 10nm, can be found from way back when Zen 2 was a pipe dream.
> 
> No matter how much resources you have, innovation wont ever be a given.



I meant that's what got them in this position in the first place. I don't mean it was a good thing. Without competition, obviously you relax too much and don't have the same drive for research. Now they're playing catch-up. 

I won't write them off though. Things move more quickly in the tech world than you're giving it credit for.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 23, 2019)

Final warning, none of what I have just deleted is on topic, unless my reading skills have diminished more than my eyesight and 4K gaming is the subject, if I have to step in again I will be issuing holiday passes..... thank you.  One or two of the deleted were purely quote clean-ups, not necessarily off topic instigation.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> *It is not a relevant metric when comparing products - you use the actual performance it gives and the characteristics it gives that under (power, heat)*, a*nd in that sense, for 90% of use cases and people, these CPUs are virtually identical. * SNIP



First of all, this sentence and your argument is a contradiction. So people should use performance, power and heat when judging a CPU. And then in the next line you say it doesn't matter anyway as these CPUs are virtually identical to Joe Casual.  

Secondly, that's exactly what I said 'faster, draw less power and likely run cooler' are the metrics people should use.

Anyway I'm wating for TechPowerUp's review summary of the 3700X - 'basically identical to the 9900K'.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> First of all, this sentence and your argument is a contradiction. So people should use performance, power and heat when judging a CPU. And then in the next line you say it doesn't matter anyway as these CPUs are virtually identical to Joe Casual.



where is the contradiction.under the criteria x,y,z 2 products are roughly the same for an untrained eye is not a contradiction.
you're confusing criteria for result.everyone chooses some criteria,not every outcome will show a clear winner.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Oh here he is, always wants to be involved.  You've already derailed the thread with a petty off-topic back and forth, don't do it again.



He's right though... what I am saying is not a biased statement or a contradiction at all, it is an _observation._ Just check it yourself, ask random people on the street about the CPU they use and why. I would be surprised if 1 out of 10 could tell you anything that made sense, the vast majority doesn't even buy a CPU, they bought 'a laptop' or 'a desktop'.

At the same time, everyone with a gaming desktop is going to be able to tell you they have 'an Nvidia' or 'an AMD' card. And I bet at least half would also give you the exact name.



EarthDog said:


> If only more cores was actually better for most people...
> 
> The real deal is similar/better performance at a lower price...core count be damned.



The two go hand in hand. Trickle down is still a thing.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> He's right though... what I am saying is not a biased statement or a contradiction at all, it is an _observation._ Just check it yourself, ask random people on the street about the CPU they use and why. I would be surprised if 1 out of 10 could tell you anything that made sense, the vast majority doesn't even buy a CPU, they bought 'a laptop' or 'a desktop'.


layman will usually just buy more cores at a given pricepoint.
same for gpus,people will consider more vram as more futureproof without delving into architectures.



Vayra86 said:


> The two go hand in hand. Trickle down is still a thing.


big time.

what really makes 9900k better than 7700k.Cores.Nothing more.


----------



## fynxer (Jun 23, 2019)

Intel will demolish AMD with their insane price cuts... or so they think


----------



## StrayKAT (Jun 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> He's right though... what I am saying is not a biased statement or a contradiction at all, it is an _observation._ Just check it yourself, ask random people on the street about the CPU they use and why. I would be surprised if 1 out of 10 could tell you anything that made sense, the vast majority doesn't even buy a CPU, they bought 'a laptop' or 'a desktop'.
> 
> At the same time, everyone with a gaming desktop is going to be able to tell you they have 'an Nvidia' or 'an AMD' card. And I bet at least half would also give you the exact name.
> 
> ...



This is very true, but at the same, the average Joe or Jane recognize branding. They more than likely know "Intel Inside" and just the logo alone. It's embedded in public consciousness in a way that few computer companies are...even when people don't know what a CPU does. Apple is probably the most recognizable computer brand and people will buy it up no matter how underwhelming and overpriced it is. People think IBM matters, even though it hasn't done anything in years that directly affects consumers. People somehow can't break from Google and go with a competitor, even though it's an evil juggernaut who catapults babies for fun. A good brand is basically like a meme and hard to kill once it sinks it's teeth in...even if it's in your own interest to do so. Intel isn't going anywhere soon. The best you could hope for is that they get their shit together.


----------



## Crackong (Jun 24, 2019)

2 more weeks.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Sure, we can wait, but all the telltale signs of what I said are already there - Zen2 barely matches CoffeeLake according to AMD's own claims...in Cinebench, lol! If we look at current chips that are roughly matched in it, we can see, that Intel wins in everything else and absolutely dominates in gaming. A good example is 2400g vs (non-k) 6700:



Well so it should! your talking about a top end intel CPU from just a few yrs ago compared to one of AMD's bottom of the line CPUs and over here in AUS that 6700 is still double the cost of a 2400G so....id be pretty pissed off if the more expensive CPU didnt beat the cheaper one, wouldnt you?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 24, 2019)

StrayKAT said:


> This is very true, but at the same, the average Joe or Jane recognize branding. They more than likely know "Intel Inside" and just the logo alone. It's embedded in public consciousness in a way that few computer companies are...even when people don't know what a CPU does. Apple is probably the most recognizable computer brand and people will buy it up no matter how underwhelming and overpriced it is. People think IBM matters, even though it hasn't done anything in years that directly affects consumers. People somehow can't break from Google and go with a competitor, even though it's an evil juggernaut who catapults babies for fun. A good brand is basically like a meme and hard to kill once it sinks it's teeth in...even if it's in your own interest to do so. Intel isn't going anywhere soon. The best you could hope for is that they get their shit together.



Exactly right, and that is why Intel's tiny price cut will have an effect as well. Its not noticeably worse, it just got cheaper, and you know the color blue. Sale.

AMD will need to keep that top/semi top position for a few generations onwards and push the red button a lot in people's minds before it really turns around.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 24, 2019)

Do you really think that people will buy Intel's CPUs after the price cut (even if it happens I seriously doubt there will be one worth mentioning) when they didn't buy this CPU till this day? I don't think people (or majority) will go for intel with the price cuts (it even sounds funny when I write it Intel cuts price of its CPUs )
Even if it happens (I really wish it did especially for Intel enthusiasts who would love to get one of the Intel's 9000 series CPUs) the price wont match or be lower than new 3000series Ryzen. Before you mention 3000Series Ryzen motherboards please look at the prices for intel's motherboards. They are not that low anyway and believe it or not, it is an older tech. (not bad but older for sure)


----------



## kings (Jun 24, 2019)

Many people will continue to buy Intel CPUs, you can rest assured!


----------



## Markosz (Jun 24, 2019)

kings said:


> Many people will continue to buy Intel CPUs, you can rest assured!



That's very true. AMD has been irrelevant in CPUs for like 10 years before Ryzen and it's hard to overcome their old stigma.
Most people (even those who buy high performance PCs) don't even follow news about CPU market so they just keep buying Intel, because that's what they always bought.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 24, 2019)

kings said:


> Many people will continue to buy Intel CPUs, you can rest assured!





Markosz said:


> That's very true. AMD has been irrelevant in CPUs for like 10 years before Ryzen and it's hard to overcome their old stigma.
> Most people (even those who buy high performance PCs) don't even follow news about CPU market so they just keep buying Intel, because that's what they always bought.


Many people will buy Intel but "many" can vary greatly. I think what people are after now, seeing all the prices, they will go for value more than just blind habits they've got. Besides I've noticed that in many stores, when you ask for advice for a laptop purchase, store tech employees will rather offer AMD based laptop instead of Intel. That's just what I've noticed but it doesn't have to be like that everywhere. Also it depends on what you are looking for but I can assure you, people would rather choose value over top-notch product. Well considering the prices.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 24, 2019)

Markosz said:


> That's very true. AMD has been irrelevant in CPUs for like 10 years before Ryzen and it's hard to overcome their old stigma.
> Most people (even those who buy high performance PCs) don't even follow news about CPU market so they just keep buying Intel, because that's what they always bought.



I don't know about that, Ryzen has already taken huge marketshare from Intel if we're talking desktop, outselling them 2:1 according to TPU in Europe's largest hardware retailer:









						AMD Outsells Intel 2:1 on European Retailer Mindfactory.de
					

European PC enthusiasts continue to see value in choosing AMD Ryzen processors over Intel Core, as the latest public data by German retailer Mindfactory.de, which ships across the EU, shows AMD processors outselling Intel 2:1. Although earlier Intel would have the upperhand in revenue despite...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




So desktop marketshare dominance can evaporate in a relatively short space of time.


----------



## kings (Jun 24, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Many people will buy Intel but "many" can vary greatly. I think what people are after now, seeing all the prices, they will go for value more than just blind habits they've got. Besides I've noticed that in many stores, when you ask for advice for a laptop purchase, store tech employees will rather offer AMD based laptop instead of Intel. That's just what I've noticed but it doesn't have to be like that everywhere. Also it depends on what you are looking for but I can assure you, people would rather choose value over top-notch product. Well considering the prices.



What people say and what they do sometimes is very different! Also, we on the forums are the minority, most people don´t know or have patience for these matters!

Ryzen appeared in 2017, with good CPUs in price/performance and 2 years later, Intel continues to have more than 80% market share! On the server side, it has about 95%.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 24, 2019)

kings said:


> What people say and what they do sometimes is very different! Also, we on the forums are the minority, most people don´t know or have patience for these matters!
> 
> Ryzen appeared in 2017, with good CPUs in price/performance and 2 years later, Intel continues to have more than 80% market share! On the server side, it has about 95%.


Sure but you have to remember that it is dropping. It wont be 90% for intel and month later 30%. AMD is regaining some of the market, slowly but still.


----------



## kings (Jun 24, 2019)

And it's good that they are earning some share, it's well deserved.

But, it´s a slow progress (more so in the servers, which is a more reluctant market), it is not with 2 or 3 generations that will take away the Intel dominance. And eventually, Intel will solve its problems with the manufacturing process.

The point is, do not be surprised if Intel continues to beat record profits and hold the majority of the market, even because AMD does not have the capacity to feed the whole market by itself!


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 24, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> I don't know about that, Ryzen has already taken huge marketshare from Intel if we're talking desktop, outselling them 2:1 according to TPU in Europe's largest hardware retailer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not really representative yet always brought up by the red fanbase.That shop had low prices for ryzen and higher for intel.I checked it out.don't remember which skus,I think 2700x vs 9700k.While normally 9700k sells for 1.25x-1.30x price of 2700x mindfactory had it for 1.40x.You should've checked that too.
Look at 9600k selling for 1.41x of 2600x price.It cost 1.25x tops usually.No wonder you see ppl buying more amd at mindfactory.


and btw,we're talking possible cuts for intel,watch ryzen 2000 prices already went down and not insignificantly.Polish price for 2700x last month - 1450pln,now 1220pln.That's 15% already.8700k dropped too,but by mere 5%.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 24, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> That's not really representative yet always brought up by the red fanbase.That shop had low prices for ryzen and higher for intel.I checked it out.don't remember which skus,I think 2700x vs 9700k.While normally 9700k sells for 1.25x-1.30x price of 2700x mindfactory had it for 1.40x.You should've checked that too.
> Look at 9600k selling for 1.41x of 2600x price.It cost 1.25x tops usually.No wonder you see ppl buying more amd at mindfactory.
> 
> 
> and btw,we're talking possible cuts for intel,watch ryzen 2000 prices already went down and not insignificantly.Polish price for 2700x last month - 1450pln,now 1220pln.That's 15% already.8700k dropped too,but by mere 5%.



Not representative? It's the largest or one of the largest PC hardware retailers in the largest European market numps. Of course it's not 100% representative, nothing is. Look how the Amazon.com top selling in hardware and components or processors for a rounder picture, where the top 10 is half or mostly AMD CPUs as well.

Anyway, if Intel cuts prices, the Ryzen 2000 series has also been heavily discounted and is far cheaper than any 8000 or 9000 Intel SKU. So AMD will have the top-end and low-end of the market cornered across the Ryzen 2000 and 3000 line-ups.

What is your argument, Intel still holds 90% of new processor sales like was the case pre-Ryzen or what? Getting upset that Intel no longer has such dominance is rather sad and self defeating


----------



## Kamgusta (Jun 24, 2019)

"Intel to cut prices in response to Ryzen 3000" = "Ryzen 3000 will perform better than comparable Intel processors"


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 24, 2019)

Kamgusta said:


> "Intel to cut prices in response to Ryzen 3000" = "Ryzen 3000 will perform better than comparable Intel processors"


That's only a theory. What is clear is that Ryzen 3xxx CPU's will be very competitive and Intel knows it. That doesn't automatically mean they will perform better. Let's wait for the actual performance numbers from reviewers before we jump to that conclusion.


----------

