More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges

[Animalpak]

Im gonna upgrade from 4790K to a 9900K hope will be the right choice.

 

[Caring1]

Now try to imagine what PCs would be like if Intel never existed - the fastest PC would be like a Playskool "Baby's First Laptop"

More likely we would have been closer to quantum computing on regular laptops because they have held back progress so much, just for profits.

 

[Vya Domus]

Then please don't talk bad about Intel 4 cores.

Why ? Am I a peasant not allowed to comment on the matters discussed ? God I am so glad I am past the age of thirteen.

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.

 

[B-Real]

It seems it's a bit more:

"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.

Under $500 is a steal. 1800x came out at $500 and that was the worst deal of all deals.

And NOW the 2700X costs 330$. Please.

Absolutely the best processor to pair with the 2080 ti to ensure no CPU bottleneck. I've been saying this all the time. It's a match made in heaven. It's so good, I've already pre-preordered it mentally.

For games, the best processor to pair with the 2080Ti will be the 9600K or the 9700K, not the 9900K.

Who cares when AMDs 8 cores still lost to Intels 4 cores in most programs and especially games.

In most programs? Wow, that's news for me. BTW, losing even in programs against a double priced CPU is nothing of a shame.

sometimes I have feeling that here (in TPU comment sections) everybody is a gamer and a 120+fps at that the CPU bottleneck (not GPU bottleneck) is main cause of that last lost frame .

I think even our friends Dwade and las experience that.

 

[las]

Why ? Am I a peasant not allowed to comment on the matters discussed ? God I am so glad I am past the age of thirteen.

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.

You are allowed to discuss, but don't try to spread non-sense. Ryzen is far from Intel perf in high fps gaming and it's a fact.

 

[bistrocrat]

Damn, still some intel fanbois try to convince us here to pay 500+$ for 8 core cpu? I mean - why? intel need our donations or something? I think they got plenty of our donations during past 5 years - selling us 4 cores for 400$ and 8 cores for 1000$ with 0-5% ipc gains over "generations"

 

[las]

Damn, still some intel fanbois try to convince us here to pay 500+$ for 8 core cpu? I mean - why? intel need our donations or something? I think they got plenty of our donations during past 5 years - selling us 4 cores for 400$ and 8 cores for 1000$ with 0-5% ipc gains over "generations"

Why? Because AMD's 8 cores are slower than Intel's 6 cores in the majority of workloads and all games.

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.

 

[john_]

It can’t be a deal when it’s a reskinned 1700 along with Lisa Su lying about Ryzen being an “overclockers dream.” 9900k is the one that deserves the $500 price tag but we get it for less than that. Great job Intel. Continue leading us forward.

I like your trolling spirit. I mean, you even troll in your system specs. And yeah, Intel should be praised, from every hacker and malware programmer in the world. "Great job Intel. Make security a great joke again".

 

[RejZoR]

Given how Battlefield 5 can max out 8 cores (JayzTwoCents test of FX8370), 8c/8t all of a sudden doesn't feel all that much. I mean, gone are the days of games sticking at 1 or at most 2 threads. Except all the crap games that still do this. I'm speaking in terms of utilization of threads as a number of them, not % of each.

@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.

 

[Vya Domus]

Stop feeding the trolls.

 

[B-Real]

You are allowed to discuss, but don't try to spread non-sense. Ryzen is far from Intel perf in high fps gaming and it's a fact.

Far from Intel means a maximum of ~10% average in games. Is that really worth the 40-45% extra bucks? Doubt it. But if you consider 9600K, maybe 9700K, I can understand. But for a 450-480$ CPU noty.

 

[las]

Far from Intel means a maximum of ~10% average in games. Is that really worth the 40-45% extra bucks? Doubt it. But if you consider 9600K, maybe 9700K, I can understand. But for a 450-480$ CPU noty.

8600K/8700K at 5+ GHz destroys any Ryzen in high fps gaming. Min, max and avg. 120-240 Hz owners should not buy Ryzen. Maybe Zen 2 will change this, but I doubt it.

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.

 

[Vayra86]

Absolutely the best processor to pair with the 2080 ti to ensure no CPU bottleneck. I've been saying this all the time. It's a match made in heaven. It's so good, I've already pre-preordered it mentally.

Absolutely the best reason to ignore you, enjoy speaking to a wall

You're mentally not making sense.

Far from Intel means a maximum of ~10% average in games. Is that really worth the 40-45% extra bucks? Doubt it. But if you consider 9600K, maybe 9700K, I can understand. But for a 450-480$ CPU noty.

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.

8600K/8700K at 5+ GHz destroys any Ryzen in high fps gaming. Min, max and avg. 120-240 Hz owners should not buy Ryzen. Maybe Zen 2 will change this, but I doubt it.

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 don't need B die memory for 2nd gen Ryzen. 1st Gen needs it.

 

[Frick]

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.

Any links to this? I have read a few benchmarks where they compare various speeds and while there is an impact it's not so great as to make the higher speed modules "needed" IMO, especially not for a budget system. And where I live 3000Mhz stick costs ad much as 2400Mhz sticks so there's no point in going lower anyway.

 

[john_]

It was a bad deal. The end. 1700X and 1700 used same chip and hit same OC.

It is what every business out there does, including Nvidia and Intel. For example, if those 8700 chips where permitted to be overclocked, probably they would be doing the same overclocking as the K parts. But for some people, this would never change. Blaming AMD for something, that they will happily justify if Nvidia or Intel where doing it. Intel was selling you the same processor for 6 years, but never mind. They needed the 14nm++++++++++++ manufacturing process to be able to put 8 cores in a mainstream CPU. And now, AMD is to blame because it didn't throw out only the 1800X model, but also cheaper models for pople to buy. Yeah, Bad AMD...

 

[Vayra86]

It is what every business out there does, including Nvidia and Intel. For example, if those 8700 chips where permitted to be overclocked, probably they would be doing the same overclocking as the K parts. But for some people, this would never change. Blaming AMD for something, that they will happily justify if Nvidia or Intel where doing it. Intel was selling you the same processor for 6 years, but never mind. They needed the 14nm++++++++++++ manufacturing process to be able to put 8 cores in a mainstream CPU. And now, AMD is to blame because it didn't throw out only the 1800X model, but also cheaper models for pople to buy. Yeah, Bad AMD...

Bad deal = not bad company. Between the 1700 and 1700X, the X was obviously the worst deal to get. It doesn't make AMD bad, it makes their product stack bad. Intel's K CPUs sell at a premium and are not considered a 'bad deal' because there is real additional performance to be gained. And so, the customer has an actual choice to make, and Intel has an actual reason to put premium pricing on a product and profit. Win-win. With Ryzen's X and non-X models that is not quite the same.

Learn to read instead of jumping on the 'poor AMD' bandwagon every time.

 

[john_]

Now try to imagine what PCs would be like if Intel never existed - the fastest PC would be like a Playskool "Baby's First Laptop"

Yeah, because ARM architecture does not exist,.... for more than 30 years.

Oh, and not forget that for 64bit, Intel would be asking you to pay for an Itanium.

 

[Fouquin]

Ryzen without Samsung B-die is meh. Needs at least 3200/C14.

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.

Only problem is that you need Samsung B-die modules which are much more expensive than 3000/CL15 or 3200/CL16.

It seems the last thing you read about Ryzen was the 1800X launch reviews and have that forever ingrained on your brain as the indelible truth. Let me present you with some more current information, so you may offer more accurate advice regarding DDR4 and Ryzen.

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.

 

[john_]

Bad deal = not bad company. Between the 1700 and 1700X, the X was obviously the worst deal to get. It doesn't make AMD bad, it makes their product stack bad. Intel's K CPUs sell at a premium and are not considered a 'bad deal' because there is real additional performance to be gained. And so, the customer has an actual choice to make, and Intel has an actual reason to put premium pricing on a product and profit. Win-win. With Ryzen's X and non-X models that is not quite the same.

Learn to read instead of jumping on the 'poor AMD' bandwagon every time.

Nope. Intel just LOCKS it's CPUs. You don't get extra performance with the K models. You just take back what is LOCKED if you don't pay the extra money. Oh, my. Some people deserve a future where CPUs and GPUs will be like modern games, where you have to pay extra money for the features that in the past would have been just part of the standard game. Should I talk about motherboards and chipsets? Never mind.

 

[las]

Any links to this? I have read a few benchmarks where they compare various speeds and while there is an impact it's not so great as to make the higher speed modules "needed" IMO, especially not for a budget system. And where I live 3000Mhz stick costs ad much as 2400Mhz sticks so there's no point in going lower anyway.

B-die is 3200/C14. And yeah, these are 30-50% more expensive than 3000/CL15 or 3200/CL16.

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

 

[Vayra86]

Nope. Intel just LOCKS it's CPUs. You don't get extra performance with the K models. You just take back what is LOCKED if you don't pay the extra money. Oh, my. Some people deserve a future where CPUs and GPUs will be like modern games, where you have to pay extra money for the features that in the past would have been just part of the standard game.

You don't need to explain it to me. I get this...

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.

 

[las]

Yeah, because ARM architecture does not exist,.... for more than 30 years.

Oh, and not forget that for 64bit, Intel would be asking you to pay for an Itanium.

ARM is slow AF.

 

[Frick]

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

Could be, I would still like to see the sources.

 

[las]

It is what every business out there does, including Nvidia and Intel. For example, if those 8700 chips where permitted to be overclocked, probably they would be doing the same overclocking as the K parts. But for some people, this would never change. Blaming AMD for something, that they will happily justify if Nvidia or Intel where doing it. Intel was selling you the same processor for 6 years, but never mind. They needed the 14nm++++++++++++ manufacturing process to be able to put 8 cores in a mainstream CPU. And now, AMD is to blame because it didn't throw out only the 1800X model, but also cheaper models for pople to buy. Yeah, Bad AMD...

I'm not blaming AMD for anything, I'm just saying that X models are a waste of money when AMD does not lock their CPU's down.

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.

 

[Frick]

ARM is slow AF.

Compared to Coffee Lake ... sure. But apples and oranges and all that.