Core i7-8700K Now at $400 as Intel CPU Prices Continue to Boil

[Ed_1]

I had to check this morning and Microcenter has them in stock for 329$ for 8700K.
So just go there for CPU+MB and buy elsewhere if needed for rest, best buy's.

 

[GreiverBlade]

I worry that if AMD can get their gaming performance up that they will just price them along side Intel's if not higher.

bah ... current AMD offering in CPU fare quite well in gaming (for resolution above 1080p mostly )

 

[Imsochobo]

8700K is 500-550 eur here.
It has been at 350 eur before summer, then 370 eur during summer before the recent price hike.

can still order for 350 here still in Norway.
They're just saying unknown delivery pretty much, some say 2018-10-23 that alone might push people over.
Only one in stock is 420++

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

what price hike?? Haven't seen those kind of hikes in weeks. (probably why living in Malaysia has its perks...) or maybe it's just a ploy from Mr.45's tariff war with China that's the real problem here, knowing well Intel has a fabrication factory in China for all we know and its one of the many problems some of you folks are experiencing...

 

[Dave65]

I don`t buy Intel unless I have to but we don't want to see them falter either, we need healthy competition from all sides.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

How the mighty have fallen.

Well done AMD. Fastrack Zen2 to deal the killer blow.

I don’t know if AMD can take full credit, as its competitor is raising prices instead of cutting them. Still, AMD forced intel into launching what needed to be on 10nm as a 14nm product. Hard to say what the situation would be if intel wasn’t fighting production issues so badly. Not defending Intel, but it’s more like the perfect storm situation for both vendors.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

8700K is £450 here. Even the i3 8100 is nearing £200, making it more expensive than the R5 2600...

Also, people are dumb. I made a meme.

 

[Durvelle27]

I worry that if AMD can get their gaming performance up that they will just price them along side Intel's if not higher.

AMD has no reason to up there prices compared to Intel.

AMD offers a competitive product while offering lower prices which is win for the consumer

I don’t understand why so many hang on to intel gaming performance when in most games is only about 10%. Is 10% really worth the price difference when both can handle any game above 100FPS

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

No, they simply had very weak competition from AMD so they didn't need to bother. Made them shedloads of money, so actually a very clever strategy for them, at our expense. AMD would have done the same if the roles were reversed.

EDIT: I remember just how expensive those Athlons were back in 2005 when AMD was on top, proving my point.

Hell, the FX's were even worse. $1000 for a single core CPU LOL.

AMD pulls the same shenanigans as intel and nvidia (took them 5 years to compete with first gen core 2 after sitting on their laurels for years with athlon 64) when possible, they've just been on the ropes so long nobody remembers the early to mid 2000s.

AMD has no reason to up there prices compared to Intel.

AMD offers a competitive product while offering lower prices which is win for the consumer

I don’t understand why so many hang on to intel gaming performance when in most games is only about 10%. Is 10% really worth the price difference when both can handle any game above 100FPS

You clearly are not familiar with capitalism. AMD could absolutely take advantage of this with ryzen 3000, pushing the price up another $20-30 to make some extra margins. If they dont do that, they'll lose out on extra cash.

It is the nature of business. Sure, being good for the consumer is nice and all, but being nice doesnt pay the bills, making money does, and when the rest of the market shoots up, you follow suit unless you are confident you can capture a significant portion of the market with your lower prices. AMD may be at that point right now, but watch, if this continues, ryzen prices will increase sooner or later.

 

[qubit]

Hell, the FX's were even worse. $1000 for a single core CPU LOL.

AMD pulls the same shenanigans as intel and nvidia (took them 5 years to compete with first gen core 2) when possible, they've just been on the ropes so long nobody remembers the early to mid 2000s.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. People whip out those rose tinted glasses and think everything was rosy "in the past".

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

I literally just bought a new Ryzen 2700X off amazon last night for $288....so, Intel's competing model being north of $400 is a very bad thing for them indeed

 

[qubit]

AMD has no reason to up there prices compared to Intel.

AMD offers a competitive product while offering lower prices which is win for the consumer

I don’t understand why so many hang on to intel gaming performance when in most games is only about 10%. Is 10% really worth the price difference when both can handle any game above 100FPS

Yes, that 10% can be quite important if it's near a limit somewhere. Say you're shooting for 144Hz steady and it can only do about 135 wobbly, then it's no good.

 

[tvamos]

Yes, that 10% can be quite important if it's near a limit somewhere. Say you're shooting for 144Hz steady and it can only do about 135 wobbly, then it's no good.

Yeah, but human eye can only see... What was it, 130?

 

[qubit]

Yeah, but human eye can only see... What was it, 130?

Don't you believe that. It's more than that, though. For example, rendering at 60fps vsync locked on a 60Hz display will look smooth and judder free, while 130fps on a 144Hz display will look juddery, because it's not synced. The main difference is that since the monitor framerate is so high and the fps is still quite high, that the judders will be rather smaller and less noticeable. It's still not good enough, though. Having properly rendered animation at 144Hz looks jaw-droppingly good.

 

[Melvis]

Hell, the FX's were even worse. $1000 for a single core CPU LOL.

Not as bad as intel pricing there single core P4 Extremes over $1000 lol while getting stomped by AMD

 

[trparky]

Rumor has it that Zen 2 test samples with 8 cores/16 threads are reaching 4.5 GHz, the only bad thing is that those test samples are crashing and crashing badly. They've still got some time to fix the issues though, it's only October and launch isn't until mid-2019. If this rumor is true then that means that AMD has finally closed the GHz gap and brought their processor clocks within inches of Intel. When Zen 2 launches... it's going to be a bloodbath.

 

[GreiverBlade]

You clearly are not familiar with capitalism. AMD could absolutely take advantage of this with ryzen 3000, pushing the price up another $20-30 to make some extra margins. If they dont do that, they'll lose out on extra cash.

well even if they did that with the current 2XXX line they would still be a better option ... for me a 2700X is 100$ lower than a 8700K and a 2600X 100$ lower than a 8600K

i gladly support them next time i upgrade if they up the price on the next gen ranging from 20-30 up to 60 at max (or i will take a 2700X at a lowered price ... i even saw some on sale at a lower price than a 8600K )

 

[king of swag187]

Or better yet, leave it on the shelves where it deserves to be since the introduction of Ryzen lol

Not quite, but I do see where you are coming from

 

[SIGSEGV]

8700K is £450 here. Even the i3 8100 is nearing £200, making it more expensive than the R5 2600...

Also, people are dumb. I made a meme.

not everyone stays informed with the latest technology update. It happened to one of my friend who almost bought i7 8700k for around 500 EUR (499 EUR) and now he's happy with his 2700X.
to be honest, Intel still has better image on average people.

 

[trparky]

to be honest, Intel still has better image on average people.

AMD really needs to up their advertising game, they need to target more than just the enthusiasts. Have you seen an AMD ad on TV? Nope. Have you seen an Intel ad on TV? Yep. People buy what they see advertised on TV.

 

[trog100]

SCAN UK has the 8700K at £450 i think i paid £340 for mine.. that is quite a hefty price increase.. something like 30% or so..

trog

 

[TheOne]

bah ... current AMD offering in CPU fare quite well in gaming (for resolution above 1080p mostly )

AMD has no reason to up there prices compared to Intel.

AMD offers a competitive product while offering lower prices which is win for the consumer

I don’t understand why so many hang on to intel gaming performance when in most games is only about 10%. Is 10% really worth the price difference when both can handle any game above 100FPS

Others have already replied, so I will just say I hope AMD will maintain its pricing when Zen 2 launches.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Others have already replied, so I will just say I hope AMD will maintain its pricing when Zen 2 launches.

oh even a +30-60$ majoration would still make them a better option (even for 1XXX) as i wrote a few post above

 

[yeeeeman]

AMD really needs to up their advertising game, they need to target more than just the enthusiasts. Have you seen an AMD ad on TV? Nope. Have you seen an Intel ad on TV? Yep. People buy what they see advertised on TV.

I agree. All these years of absence have made them a bad name of being a non option. And now, when they really have great CPUs, people still don't know that they got back in the game.
But what am I talking when enthusiats who know what the 2700X and 8700K are capable of, are still buying the Intel one even when prices are stupidly expensive. I wouldn't pay more than 300$ on 8700K, more so knowing that in one month we will get a 8 core version at 450$.

 

[rtwjunkie]

And then when intel finally will solve this mess and prices will come back to normal market will be close to 50:50,

Dreams...LOL. Even when AMD was last clearly superior and perceived to be kicking Intel’s a**, the market wasn’t even 50/50. Intel had even less market penetration back then.