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
Nvidia increases their prices because they don't have competition. Go back at AMD's HD 4870 and especially HD 4850 introduction and you will see what happened when Nvidia thought they where playing alone. $50 rebate to all early GTX 280 and GTX 260 buyers if i remember correctly. And you know something? AMD doesn't need to do a thing about it. Because Nvidia creating higher price points will also benefit AMD in the future. Just not us.
Come on man. This is weak - at least just admit you're wrong then. Let's keep to facts.Again, no need to tell me all this - it still doesn't change what was said, which you still don't seem to grasp. Going back to whatever point in time, AMD has never turned a profit off their GPU division and we all know what CPU has done in the past. Even when they DID have performance crowns with CPU, they failed to really cash in on that and they made silly marketing and product placement choices. Its in their culture, in their blood, and its completely ridiculous and works against them in the long run. That lack of funding on R&D is a long term issue that they have created for themselves by not cashing in on design wins.
It still happens too. Look at the console deals - AMD was the cheapest option and what have they got for it? LOTS of units moved with minimal profit. Here's hoping they struck a better deal for the successors. Full fat Vega is a GPU so hard to make that they have to sell it at premium to break even. The list goes on...
Canadian prices on hardware is too much as is. I would have to soon take a second mortgage out just to pay for the processor + ram and mobo.
This is why 99.9% of 120-240 Hz owners are using Intel. CPU is the limiting factor for high fps gaming.
You can talk about blindness and perspective that is not supported by any data, but you are in fact describing your posts not mine.
I think I lost enough time here. Have a nice day.
You've just described a bunch of missteps AMD made after they had some success, which has put them in a dreadful position on CPU for many years and one they have only now recovered from - and then we come full circle to Ryzen: which has a product stack that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you want to extract profit. I understand they want their market share back. But one does not exclude the other. There are no signs of anything changing here.
Perspective...
Design of a chip and marketing it / placing it as a product are two different things. Intel's non-K CPUs can overclock if they'd really wanted them to. But by not allowing them to, they create more value within their existing design. XFR on the Ryzen side doesn't really do the same when non-XFR enabled CPUs can be overclocked to virtually the same performance - hence the 'bad deal' statement. And when your top-end most profitable product is considered a 'bad deal' for consumers, that won't get you much profit, rendering the higher price point useless.So far you've provided literally zero, which is far more useless altogether. Repeating yourself doesn't make a false statement true, it just harms your credibility. Similarly, not willing to admit you're wrong but still repeating yourself, makes you a troll.
On both counts you can prove us wrong...Nah, that was clear as day from the get-go. Read back. Also, you can play any game at 120-144 FPS, not just some weak shooters that all run royally above 120 fps anyway and are the least vulnerable to CPU bottlenecking, in fact, compared to other game types like strategy.
When chasing high fps, as in 120+, CPU and Memory becomes the limiting factor.
This is where Ryzen chokes. Especially when using non B-die memory because of the crappy latencies.
If so, yes. Yes I absolutely misjudged your argument, and I have to apologize that I have been defending AMD's performance as it stands in the larger scope of gaming, and not focusing the entirety of my argument on the niche of a niche market that you reside in.
On second thought, no, I don't need to apologize. As the conclusion to that review (which I quoted parts of) very, very clearly states; the difference in raw CPU performance, whether that be in games or pure arithmetic, was minimal at best. Topping out at a mere 5.5% increase in only a fraction of the tests. Bear in mind that is before the AGESA patch rolled out with improved performance, and before the hardware changes within Zen+ that alleviated the issue almost entirely.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." is a wonderful joke, but let it remain a joke.
I play at 2560x1440 165 Hz Gsync. So I prefer 150+ fps.
Your point is very valid. When you compare recent cpus, it doesn't make big sense to buy a new CPU every year, because advancement is really not that big.
However i myself have a PC with a 10 year old, dual core CPU and i want an upgrade.
You may compare this cpu everyway you want, and it will suck at everything compared to todays chips.
This means i am looking at todays deals, not last year or older, and today, this Intel chip meets my needs.
I have a 5 year old cpu at work, which is core i7, and this cpu is good enough for todays jobs that need to be done. If i compare this i7 with new chips, then i would say that upgrade is really not worth the money, but in 5 more years, the progress will be big enough to reconsider and buy new chip.
If you consider only games then sure intel is doing well. Not all is just games you know. I'm sure the server industry or workstations look so much to how much FPS they can get :) It's way more in the core and threads and multitasking capabilities for applications handling than gamers and their 120+ fps count. Especially when most od them are moving to consoles.
Intel sits on pretty much all enterprise. AMD is viable tho, but this does not mean that the market shifts. Most people don't trust AMD hardware.
And their argument is that they are "pro gamers". You, a peasant, that doesn't play the same game for hours on end for no gain would never understand that.
MLG and all that, what the hell do we know.
This is the one I found just now but I'm sure there are articles or statistics with more numbers and details.
2015 market share newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-will-grow-9-4-to-91-5bn-in-2015/
2018 market share newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-reaches-137-9-billion-in-2018-mobile-games-take-half/
I'll try to find more relevant data but focus on PC games and show me that increase you've mentioned.
"Most people don't trust AMD hardware". Can you get me, I don't know, statistics, articles that would clearly state that "most people" (hopefully a number), supporting what you just stated?
I guess I'm this no one here since I use 4k 60Hz :) There's a lot of people using Ryzen and I'm going to be one of them too :)There it is. I was just curious if the other guy knows about it but he didn't wanted to share his own statistics :)