Wednesday, September 12th 2018
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1723816949774.png)
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.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.
147 Comments on More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges
10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope... - And this is a fixed benchmark, not an ingame situation where you can have FAR more happening on screen.
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,18
10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope...
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,12
10%? High refresh rate gaming? Nope... DX12? Check!
www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,16
This also mirrors my own experience with even the 8700K - there are in-game situations where you still drop comfortably below 60 FPS and it is directly related to CPU. I play a lot of different games, both old and new, AAA and obscure, and that gives me an even broader view than the benches you find in the above review.
Its easy to echo reddit posts and performance *summaries* of the top ten Google hits, but if you have first hand experience, you will know this is the truth to CPU performance. That last few % of performance matters if you're chasing a high, stable framerate. And due to the fact that GPU performance keeps pushing boundaries while CPU performance has stalled over the past decade, this becomes more and more relevant.
The excuses of 'but if you go higher res, it doesn't matter' or 'but that only applies to old crappy games' or 'but that only applies to some weird indie stuff'... that's all fine but I do buy a CPU to be a jack of all trades, and preferably a master of all of them, too. Not one that is inconsistent or laggy in a small selection of use cases. And even though all those excuses are true, they still don't eliminate the differences that do exist. It would be wise to acknowledge those and, along with that, acknowledge that the people who chase top end performance won't settle for a CPU that does not deliver that.
Altogether, when you have half a dozen niche's you cannot cover well, the net result is that the product simply isn't all that great when gaming is a primary use case. Its good - and great value for money. But not great at performance.
I only tested overwatch with a 1060 on both ryzen 1600 and 8700k (i know, big difference in price) but for high fps the difference was huge, from 120-140fps minimum to 180-200. For any fast paced game you want as many fps as you can get so that the display picks the most recent one to refresh onto so intel wins on all of these games(if the gpu is sufficient enough to push above 80 or so fps where the intel just pulls ahead after).
HT mostly benefits synthetic benchmarks and certain server workloads. For gaming it usually hurts performance, especially in terms of latency and stutter. Paying ~$100 extra over 9700K just for HT is pretty wasteful, even for applications where HT is beneficial, since those workloads scale even better with even more cores.
1440p gaming.... with some CPU's...
3 games at random (there were others). But the point is valid. Where is the 10% difference? This is for a 2700X of course, as it is the competitor for what's coming. But using the very similar core 8700k, you can get the picture.
Now, if you still want to argue about fps and how bad AMD is as a gaming chip, feel free. But you'll need to specify at max 1080p or 720p resolutions.
Here's BF1 at 720p
Really bad performance there.
But yes, overall, Intel is better but there's no credible way to say AMD is crap at gaming... That's some serious bullshit you're rubbing in your eyes.
www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-performance-with-ryzen-7-2700x-on-the-amd-x470-platform_205154
2080Ti costs 1400-1500 IRL (because no one's going to sell ya fair non-ref card for 1200$, and no one is going to sell TU102 for 1000$ ever!), so why Intel can't go dumbest way and tag the 9900K with 500-600 euro? Just because they're so "exclusive".
P.S. 500$ recommended => 500 euro recommended + 20% taxes....we get 600 euro CPU
Let's take a look with an overclocked Titan V:
Zen2 has some serious catching up to do.
Ok, you got me, if they're dumb enough to buy turding, then they probably will turn on RT lol