Wednesday, September 12th 2018
More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges
Intel is debuting its first wave of 9th generation Core desktop processors with three models later this year - the 6-core/6-thread Core i5-9600K, the 8-core/8-thread Core i7-9700K, and the 8-core/16-thread Core i9-9900K. We've been very curious about how the entry of the Core i9 extension to the mainstream-desktop LGA1151 platform would affect pricing of the Core i5 and Core i7 K-series SKUs, especially given that the i7-9700K is the first Core i7 SKU in a decade to lack HyperThreading. An updated catalog by a major Singapore-based PC components distributor adds more clarity.
Singapore-based PC component distributor BizGram, in its latest catalog, disclosed the all-inclusive retail prices of the three new processors. As Redditor Dylan522p suggests, if you do the SGD-USD conversion and subtract all taxes, you get ominous-looking SEP prices for the three. Intel could price the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99. The Core i7-9700K could be priced at $349.99. The flagship Core i9-9900K could go for $449.99. These seem like highly plausible pre-tax launch prices for the three chips, and fit into the competitive landscape.
At $250, the Core i5-9600K could blunt the slight price-performance edge the Ryzen 5 2600X has over the current i5-8600K, with its 2-3% performance increment. An early review of the Core i7-9700K is already out, which suggests that it could emerge the ultimate gaming CPU, with multi-threaded performance trading blows with the Ryzen 7 2700X. The Core i9-9900K could entice enthusiasts and quasi pro-sumers with its 16 MB L3 cache and 16-thread multi-threaded advantage. Given that AMD sought $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X at launch, $450 seems only fair.
Source:
BizGram
Singapore-based PC component distributor BizGram, in its latest catalog, disclosed the all-inclusive retail prices of the three new processors. As Redditor Dylan522p suggests, if you do the SGD-USD conversion and subtract all taxes, you get ominous-looking SEP prices for the three. Intel could price the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99. The Core i7-9700K could be priced at $349.99. The flagship Core i9-9900K could go for $449.99. These seem like highly plausible pre-tax launch prices for the three chips, and fit into the competitive landscape.
147 Comments on More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges
You chose the worst way possible of trying to disprove me proving once again that you have nothing intelligent to say and are here just to troll and insult people. Off to the ignore list you go, I had enough of your nonsense.
"That said, here we go converted to USD.
- Core i3-9350K is listed at 252 SGD = $189.99
- Core i5-9600K is listed at 370 SGD = $269.99
- Core i7-9700K listed at 518 SGD= $379.99
- Core i9-9900K listed at 666 SGD = $479.99."
So you get the 2700X for around +120-150 extra $ to get ~7-10% average performance boost in games and maybe the same in programs. For 35-45% more money. What a deal.And NOW the 2700X costs 330$. Please.For games, the best processor to pair with the 2080Ti will be the 9600K or the 9700K, not the 9900K.In most programs? Wow, that's news for me. BTW, losing even in programs against a double priced CPU is nothing of a shame.I think even our friends Dwade and las experience that.
Especially when OC'ed. Ryzen X CPU's are already maxed out because of XFR. Manually OC'ing them often lowers gaming perf because boost clock with XFR is higher than an all-core OC.
8600K stock beats 2700X with max OC in high fps gaming. OC that 8600K and it steamrolls the 2700X.
Hell, even i5-8400 beats 2700X in most games.
Please stop compairing AMD cores with Intel cores 1:1.
Add to this that Ryzen needs Samsung B-die memory which is 50% more expensive than 3000/CL15 or 3200/Cl16 that 8600K can use without gimping performance.
Funny how people always seem to forget that Ryzen performance is severely worse without B-die memory and forget to add the extra cost for these modules.
@dwade
You're a bit of an Intel fanboy aren't ya? If Intel was "leading" anything, we'd be still on ridiculously overpriced quad cores... Only reason they move anywhere is AMD. But that's how market works... Which is why we all want competition to exist, otherwise only ones getting screwed are us, the consumers.
B450 + Ryzen 2600 + OC is a good choice for a value rig tho. Only problem is that you need Samsung B-die modules which are much more expensive than 3000/CL15 or 3200/CL16.
Inflated memory prices is actually a big problem for AMD and Ryzen. Going with non-B die will lower perf ALOT.
IF needs high speed low latency memory.
You're mentally not making sense.No, he's quite right, for most games that run into CPU performance constraints, Intel CPUs will push a lot more than 10% extra. And there is more to that than just high refresh gaming. The 10% gap is *average* across a large number of titles where a lot of them do not run into CPU performance bottlenecks. Oh, and I hate to say this, but there was a similar situation when it was FX- procs going up against Sandy Bridge. Some outliers, but the 'average' gap wasn't huge. It doesn't have to be huge - its still a gap.
- Any game that hinges on single thread performance (and, unsurprisingly, the vast majority still does unless all you play is AAA of the past few years)
- Most indie releases
- Most games on Source and Unity engines
- Most gaming at high refresh apart from the most optimized ones
- Recent games that push CPU heavy across the board (TW: Warhammer etc.)
All of this runs noticeably better on an Intel CPU. Even compared to an ideal Ryzen setup with perfect RAM and fast storage.
is it worth the price gap? If you spend a few thousand on your complete setup, then yes, 150-200 bucks is peanuts - in fact it translates nicely over to the 10% perf gap you mentioned ;). And that is precisely the problem AMD also suffers in HEDT with Threadripper. You may be able to get cheaper CPUs, but the total cost of a rig isn't much different.You don't need B die memory for 2nd gen Ryzen. 1st Gen needs it.
Learn to read instead of jumping on the 'poor AMD' bandwagon every time.
Oh, and not forget that for 64bit, Intel would be asking you to pay for an Itanium.
AGESA 1.0.0.6 was released in May of last year to address memory compatibility and performance issues with the initial Ryzen launch SKUs.
In W1zzard's own words from his review of DDR4 scaling on Ryzen - "We are happy to report that you can save some money by choosing a slower DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2666 memory, at least until DDR4-3200 or higher memory becomes more affordable. You lose practically no performance to slower memory on the Ryzen platform, when averaged across our CPU tests. The fastest memory configuration in our bench, DDR4-3200 CL14, is about 3.1 percent faster than the slowest DDR4-2133 configuration. ... The story repeats in our game-tests, where the biggest difference, all of 5.5 percent, takes place at the lowest resolution (1920 x 1080), while the difference is a meager 0.8 percent at 4K Ultra HD. ... It came as a bit of surprise to us that memory speed didn't even affect performance of CPU-intensive tests, such as video-encoding in which large data streams are being pushed in and out of the main memory."
Furthering compatibility and performance is the hardware changes made to Zen+ in regards to the IMC, allowing the current generation of Ryzen CPUs to run a wider range of faster RAM. There is still a need to cherry pick for the ultra-fast (DDR4-3466+) but for 2666-3200 just about any off-the-shelf kit will do. I personally run a kit of Corsair DDR4-3200 that is not rated for Ryzen compatibility (predates Ryzen, as a matter of fact) and yet still runs at the default 3200/CL16 XMP profile on a post-AGESA 1.0.0.6 UEFI.
And yeah, you loose alot of perofrmance in CPU BOUND GAMING going with non B-die.
Please don't use GPU bound game tests as an example... Meh
You need to take a step back and look at which companies are successful and leading the marketplace versus those who are not. AMD is notorious for undercutting itself and cannibalizing its own product stack. It has done so on CPU, it has done so on GPU, and it has happened quite often that they're stuck with lots of old stock as a result of it. From three rebrands of the same GPU to Ryzens that have zero OC headroom and just boost to cap out of the box - it may be good for the end user, but it is utter crap for AMD's profit margins.
And guess what, AMD needs profit to spend on R&D.
Did the penny drop yet??? Now look at Nvidia, that just releases a whole new gen at inflated pricing to keep Pascal afloat so they can clear stock. Smart business. Oh, and while you're at it, take note of their market share.
Atleast they could be better binned. But they're not. Since all Ryzen chips OC's the same. Low 4 GHz range.
Intel 14nm++ is more advanced and more dense than GloFo 12nm.