New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

[notb]

Intel will only use solder on 9600k, 9700k and 9900k, so your only choice is one of them, price per core = 9600k $262 % 6 = 43.6 usd, 9700k $374 % 8 = 46.75 usd, 9900k $488 % 10 cores cause 8 threads = 25% more performance overall so, 48.8 usd per core, for games the best choice is clear the 9600k, almost 5.0ghz.

Please don't use "%" as a division operator. It's a modulo operator. :-D
I know they teach that in elementary schools in many countries, but this notation is awful and it just makes an unnecessary confusion as people expand their math knowledge.

As for the CPUs: you're obviously right. The {gen}600 model has been the gaming "value" choice for a while. That's the way Intel positions the CPUs.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

I find that more improbable than people just acting like fanboys...

Most likely - either way though it's funny how far people go to defend a company - I mean none of them actually care about us, they just want the money and that's how it works.

 

[R0H1T]

I will address it. First off however, I never said that YOU were 'an entitled person'. Just a general remark on 'people' or 'your average consumer'. And then only the vocal ones, really.

Why are corporations able to make so much money > because different (tax) rules apply to them > and that happens because governments and countries want to attract those big corporations and companies because it also helps their economy. Its a catch 22. The same with the race to the top for CEO salary: its a hot topic in Netherlands, and one that will never really cease, but this is the sheer force of capitalism and always needing/wanting more at work right here. It has nothing to do with the price companies may or may not charge for a product and it has nothing to do with the margin on that price point. The real reason companies get rich, and more importantly, why the fat toads get even fatter, is because that is how money, power and influence simply works. It needs correcting, I agree, but that won't ever - EVER - happen through the price of a product for consumers.

As for punishing misleading results: yes, there should be more severe punishment of it, but the 3.5GB example was one of the few that wás actually punished and led to a sentence.

You seem to be mixing up several things here. Because even with misleading results, the reality is no different and even with the corrected results, there is a performance gap that Intel will, can and should be cashing in on. Its not like the Intel CPU is in fact slower than the cheaper alternative. The gap is just a bit less pronounced as it was made out to be.

As for 'entitled' to all the profits - that's a wrong use of the definition. They are not entitled to anything. They have created a (misleading) reality that some people will fall for, and many in fact do not. This goes back to the eternal argument that AMD can do whatever they won't be successful because Intel and Nvidia are evil and control the market. Its simply not true. The AMD offerings are often really, truly not that much of an advantage, OR they fail to sell them in the right way. History is filled to the brim with AMD PR and marketing fails. When something is going wrong, and you start pointing fingers at others to blame, you had best make sure you've got everything perfectly in order in your own house first... otherwise you're easy prey. Look at Intel, recently with their multitude of PR fails and security issues. Those have made AMD all the more interesting as an alternative.

Its that simple back and forth of mindshare that is of great influence to price. And in that tiny space, us, consumers, still have some real weight. Yes, it matters what an internet community says about a new release. Yes, it matters that we identify the 9900K as essentially overpriced. But its wrong to think that Intel 'should' price it lower. We do not know their strategy for the mid- or long term at all.

I am but it leads to the same conclusion for me i.e. corporations should be held to a higher standard than they are atm. We can't do much about say coltan, since that's an international issue, but when companies lie/mislead/cheat to the end user we absolutely have the power to punish them & IMO companies shouldn't be rewarded for dishonesty. Take the case of this NUC for instance ~ https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc/kits/nuc7pjyh.html

Supposed to be dual channel, except it isn't "enabled" btw I don't know if it's a problem with all Gemini Lake parts or just that NUC, since I've seen more than half a dozen N5000 laptops & none of them have DC.

No, in the context of this thread I'll say Intel have a history of being more anti consumer, than AMD, especially in the last 10~15 years, that's how I remember it anyway. As a general comment, we can't rely on any of these companies, including AMD & I remember that 560/x GPU thing.

That's not my point really, it's just that Intel can't or shouldn't sell chips based on questionable benchmarks & that practice should never be defended, be it Apple/Intel/Nvidia or AMD.

 

[StrayKAT]

Are you an idiot? Do you have any idea of how the world works and basic economics?
Things are cheaper now because of supply and demand, streamlined supply and production lines and most importantly, automation.
Read a book.

Looks like I touched a nerve.

Yes, I read. This doesn't change that a huge part of the supply line are getting paid very little. Or did I wake up in a magical world where labor costs suddenly don't matter? Sounds cool. I come from a world where wars are fought over this.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

Yes, I read. This doesn't change the fact that a huge part of the supply line are getting paid very little. Or did I wake up in a magical world where labor costs suddenly don't matter? Sounds cool. I come from a world where wars are fought over this.

I think he forgets that the bulk of silicone is produced in China where other countries rely on cheap labor for.

 

[Paganstomp]

12% isn't a hole hella lot.

 

[trog100]

Wrong. Ryzen is priced well - so is the 8700k - however the 9900k is too poor value for gamers, it makes more sense to put the difference into a better monitor or graphics card.



Why do we need 2? Well show me a z390 board with the support for devices my x299 gaming carbon has, 8 sata ports, 4 pci x16's, 8 ram slots, this list could go on - this is all high end stuff - not mainstream. If I didn't need all this I would still be using my z270x gaming 7 rig with a 6600k but I don't, It gathers dust now. Yeah and let's bring HCC cpus to the mainstream and ramp up the price in the process - 8700k goes for around £300 new and yet 2c4t adds on £300 - what happened there? And FYI most people still run 1060 6gb's and 1080p monitors - that's where the main market is.

an 8700K is currently £460 from Scan UK.. lets be a at least a little bit accurate..

trog

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.

 

[NeuralNexus]

I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.

Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.

They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.

 

[notb]

Most likely - either way though it's funny how far people go to defend a company - I mean none of them actually care about us, they just want the money and that's how it works.

How could we not defend a company that is one of the pillars of IT in our civilization?

You don't have to admire Intel and you might not even respect their contribution to computing (which would be weird for a wannabe enthusiast), but you should understand their importance for stability of this business and the general reality around us.
Do you like pizza? Imagine there was a single company selling 90% of pizzas globally. I'm sure you wouldn't want that company to have any problems.

I work in insurance - and industry that's constantly plagued by price wars. People don't like paying for insurance, but they have to. And the business is very scale-dependent, i.e. a large market share greatly improves your margins. Hence, smaller companies are selling policies at dumping prices just to get a large client base. It's easier to renew a client than convince a new to join. So it makes sense to sell them a product at a loss. If they stay for another 1-2 years, we'll make a profit in the end.

I look at CPU business and I see some analogies. For example: you have a huge technological cost for R&D and product release. Clients are rather loyal to brands. And most importantly: people have to buy CPUs - it's just a matter of whom to buy from.
I'm not saying AMD margins are too low for making their business stable. But business-wise it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for them to sell even at a loss now, but get up to 20-30% market share and gain some momentum.
On the other hand, it would be totally sensible for Intel to realize that there's a particular group of people that's naturally pulled towards AMD's characteristics and fighting for them is very expensive, so sustaining 90% market share simply costs way too much. Maybe someone had the balls to stand up during a meeting and say: let's give up - it's better to sell 7 CPUS for $500 than 9 for $300.

 

[vMax65]

There is no need to think. In single threaded scenario's you can see in the provided tests both Game and Creator Mode FPS remains the same on Ryzen. That is where you see the real absolute performance gap if you would all core OC the Intel 9900K. It starts at 20% and goes up to ~ 40% in a pure single threaded scenario such as CS:GO.

That is, of course, if you are not GPU limited in any way.

And that changes the perspective entirely, too - now consider the fact that a 9700K will perform 100% the same with 8 cores available and likely clock a tiny bit higher too, and the 66% price gap is what, 35-40% for a potential 20-40%+ performance advantage.

But, this title does generate more clicks. I get it

You absolutely hit the nail on the head on generating more clicks and the real differential in performance game to game and GPU limits.. As importantly to those that seem to place Intel as the bad player in this marketing FUD world we live in, AMD also have a terrific track record in FUD, with the Vega debacle and some of the marketing FUD they released prior to release... And lets not forget the slew of promised great CPU's that failed to materialise prior to Ryzen...Most if not all company's will do whatever they can to get there products the maximum exposure including skewing results to suit there needs...both AMD and Intel have played this game...Intel with vastly greater resources obviously has done this to the max...

I take my hat of to AMD for coming back into the CPU and GPU business with a bang and finally bringing real competition to the table that has so sorely been missing and importantly, this was not Intel's fault that AMD could not compete for quiet some time. What I do find wrong is that Intel are not learning fast enough that they have real competition in AMD, especially in the Pricing area. Intel could and should have released the new 9th Gen CPU's at a lower price, still above AMD but not at the level we are currently seeing...$400 for the 9900K would have been acceptable and would have given AMD a real headache...But margins are what Intel are after, not market share like AMD.

Bottom line, I hate the fanboyism that permeates this enthusiast PC hardware sector, both AMD and Intel are making great products and personally we have such a great choice across all price points and seriously powerful CPU's to suit all...boy have things changed from my teens in the 80's. Buy AMD...great, your getting real value for your money, buy Intel great, your getting top end performance or your money.

 

[cadaveca]

They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.

More like milking the bank accounts of those foolish enough to buy one. There's a distinct difference.

Those defending Intel's terrible pricing here make me laugh. Tell you what, you guys get together and organise a fundraiser for your favourite multi-billion dollar company Intel. They could do with a few more bob.

You've got it wrong... again, Intel is doing AMD a favor here, making AMD look that much better.

The way you were talking and comparimg old CPUs and prices to current ones just sounded silly. Yeah the best is expensive but it doesn't get exponentially expensive every generation. Just cause they squeezed over $1k out of you for a non HEDT doesn't mean they should be squeezing $5k now cause the new ones are soooo much faster than the past ones and faster than anyone truly needs them to be. Cmon m8 with that logic the corvette should be a million dollars by now. People improve upon designs to sell an improved product at a similar price not to make an entirely new price segment year after year, cause you know they found a way to improve it. I'm like you, all for getting what you pay, I usually feel like you get what you pay for and the more expensive the item USUALLY reflects quality though not always.

I am not suggesting they charge 5x what they did a decade ago; I'm suggesting they should have bene charging the same thing all along, but they haven't been. The launch of the 2600K so long ago, at such a reasonable price, drastically changed things. They could afford to do so, because AMD's competition really did not compete. So now that there is real competition, they HAVE to increase the price back to the levels they were so long ago, when AMD was competing. Intel needs to sell more innovations like 16 threads along with an IGP, and do things like bring back soldered IHS...

That's why I look to times long past... the time when AMD was selling the Athlon X2 and Phenom CPUs, and Intel was struggling with heat issues (prescott, or pressHOT, as it was commonly referred to). The parallels between these two times are too many to count.

 

[mcraygsx]

I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.



They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.

Where is the public apology we were all expecting from INTEL and their Pickle technologies buddy?

 

[TheGuruStud]

You absolutely hit the nail on the head on generating more clicks and the real differential in performance game to game and GPU limits.. As importantly to those that seem to place Intel as the bad player in this marketing FUD world we live in, AMD also have a terrific track record in FUD, with the Vega debacle and some of the marketing FUD they released prior to release... And lets not forget the slew of promised great CPU's that failed to materialise prior to Ryzen...Most if not all company's will do whatever they can to get there products the maximum exposure including skewing results to suit there needs...both AMD and Intel have played this game...Intel with vastly greater resources obviously has done this to the max...

I take my hat of to AMD for coming back into the CPU and GPU business with a bang and finally bringing real competition to the table that has so sorely been missing and importantly, this was not Intel's fault that AMD could not compete for quiet some time. What I do find wrong is that Intel are not learning fast enough that they have real competition in AMD, especially in the Pricing area. Intel could and should have released the new 9th Gen CPU's at a lower price, still above AMD but not at the level we are currently seeing...$400 for the 9900K would have been acceptable and would have given AMD a real headache...But margins are what Intel are after, not market share like AMD.

Bottom line, I hate the fanboyism that permeates this enthusiast PC hardware sector, both AMD and Intel are making great products and personally we have such a great choice across all price points and seriously powerful CPU's to suit all...boy have things changed from my teens in the 80's. Buy AMD...great, your getting real value for your money, buy Intel great, your getting top end performance or your money.

Using performance metrics from a 14 yr old game engine isn't proving anything. More baloney results. It doesn't even have anything to do with single/multithreading. Source straight up runs like doo doo on ryzen.

Don't agree with the dumb dumb. He's saying that intel leads by 40% in ST, but is knocked down to 12% in MT with 15% ish higher clocks. Tell me, where is all that intel IPC at? It doesn't exist. You can conclude that intel currently has a few percent IPC lead lol. And that doesn't include optimized memory for ryzen.

Dummy is flat out wrong or AMD makes the most superior CPU to ever exist for the next 20 yrs b/c of its SMT. Intel's only tangible lead is in freq and/or applications optimized only for intel (which is most everything).

Ever see game benchmarks with all CPUs locked to 4ghz? It's not rosy for intel's ipc "superiority".

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

AMD . . .
Smarter . . .
Choice . . .

 

[Prima.Vera]

A different question:

How are the motherboards for AMD 2xxx vs Intel's 9xxx processors??

I'm talking about hardware and software features wise, nr of PCI-E lines, etc

Thank you.

 

[Metroid]

I find the 9000 series to be pricey and pointless with AMD preparing Ryzen 3000 series just months away. CES 2019 should give consumers an idea of what Ryzen will be like given that Epyc is what Ryzen is based on. 7nm with 15-20% IPC gains, higher clock speeds, and refinements should be beastly. The wait and see approach should want many INTEL fanboys should be doing at this moment.



They are straight morons for justifying INTEL milking their bank accounts for minimum performance improvements.

The question is, when will they be released? If is August next year then i say is pointless to wait, now if is February / march then is worth the wait.

Showcase on "The AMD CES keynote will take place on January 9 at 9 AM PT. " and release on March seems an ideal thing to do.

 

[TheGuruStud]

The question is, when will they be released? If is August next year then i say is pointless to wait, now if is February / march then is worth the wait.

Showcase on "The AMD CES keynote will take place on January 9 at 9 AM PT. " and release on March seems an ideal thing to do.

Unfortunately (for us), Epyc has first dibs. Strong Epyc sales will screw us regardless of planned release date.

 

[StrayKAT]

A different question:

How are the motherboards for AMD 2xxx vs Intel's 9xxx processors??

I'm talking about hardware and software features wise, nr of PCI-E lines, etc

Thank you.

They're practically all the same at this point, with the same Taiwan companies building hardware, following the same design trends, and implementing the same UEFI implementation. Give or take a few different app features.

The only thing that's different is Supermicro makes only Intel stuff.. and they have better hardware (sans the Chinese infiltration heh).. but their software is woefully behind the other companies. I'm jealous of all of the bells/whistles..

 

[GoldenX]

I can say that the Ryzen UEFI implementations are better on MSI compared to Gigabyte.

 

[cadaveca]

I can say that the Ryzen UEFI implementations are better on MSI compared to Gigabyte.

Generally speaking, it seems that anything is better on most brands compared to Gigabyte these days.

But what Gigabyte does do really well is make boards that work fantastically in Hackintoshes.

 

[StrayKAT]

One thing I haven't checked out are NUCs. I'm curious since Intel makes the UEFI.. but maybe it's all a lot more simplified than usual?

 

[GoldenX]

Generally speaking, it seems that anything is better on most brands compared to Gigabyte these days.

But what Gigabyte does do really well is make boards that work fantastically in Hackintoshes.

Good to know, I had no idea of that. Good luck getting a Ryzen to work well on Darwin thou.

 

[StrayKAT]

Just to add to what I said earlier.. I dug up a video. It's looks like Intel's UEFI is no more stripped down than others. I like the clean look too. Intel needs to make motherboards again, imo.

Ugh, my SM bios is far behind this, in interface design. I mean, seriously.. it's horrible.

 

[GoldenX]

Just to add to what I said earlier.. I dug up a video. It's looks like Intel's UEFI is no more stripped down than others. I like the clean look too. Intel needs to make motherboards again, imo.

Ugh, my SM bios is far behind this, in interface design. I mean, seriously.. it's horrible.

No thanks, the cheap ones were horrible, even PC-Chips and Biostar were better.