Friday, June 21st 2019

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

Jun 21st, 2019 06:12 Discuss (176 Comments)

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.

Source: DigiTimes

Add your own comment

176 Comments on Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

#126

FameOfTheWolf

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.

#127

Shatun_Bear

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

#128

Manu_PT

cucker tarlsonokay,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.

Vayra86Its 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.

#129

cucker tarlson

Manu_PTI 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.

#130

efikkan

Shatun_BearInferior 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.

#131

cucker tarlson

Shatun_BearInferior 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.

#132

voltage

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

#133

Shatun_Bear

efikkanAs 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.

#134

StrayKAT

voltageJust 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.

#135

Prima.Vera

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

#136

kapone32

wolfToo 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.

#137

StrayKAT

kapone32What 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.

#138

lexluthermiester

StrayKATThe 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.

#139

Countryside

Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15%

#140

Tsukiyomi91

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.

#141

efikkan

Shatun_BearNvidia 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).

#142

GoldenX

Tsukiyomi91IF (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.

#143

Shatun_Bear

Tsukiyomi91IF (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.

#144

Blueberries

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.

#145

Shatun_Bear

efikkanFaster? 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.

#146

lexluthermiester

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

Context much?

#147

Vayra86

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_BearNvidia 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.

#148

EarthDog

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. :)

#149

The Quim Reaper

Shatun_BearSo 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.

#150

Vya Domus

StrayKATThe 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.

Add your own comment

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

176 Comments on Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

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

Related News

176 Comments on Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts