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

[londiste]

Intel CPUs don't really have MSRP as such. Intel lists Recommended Customer Price which is the price for 1000-unit quantities. In practice though that does end up as the price they are being sold so close enough: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=134896,186604,186605
9600K: $262-$263
9700K: $374-$385
9900K: $488-$499

 

[Vario]

Btarunr uses a lot of sensationalist language. For example 'embattled'. I think this site needs to maintain its professionalism and avoid hyperbole, bias, and sensationalism when discussing the various brands.

According to data from Mercury Research, two generations of Ryzen increased AMD’s x86 desktop unit market share from 12.2% to 17.1% between the first quarters of 2018 and 2019. Its x86 notebook unit market share rose from 8% to 13.1% during the same period. Its market share rose as its rival Intel suffered supply shortages, which encouraged customers to switch to AMD’s CPUs.

83% market share is not 'embattled'.

embattled - adj. "beset by problems or difficulties". "experiencing a lot of problems and likely to be defeated or destroyed" https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/embattled
The term is hyperbole, implying that Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy because of a future yet to be released competitor's processor.

in another example

With 7 nm AMD Ryzen 3000 processor family expected to make landfall early-July, and "Ice Lake" nowhere in sight, a panicked Intel announced the development of the Core i9-9900KS 8-core/16-thread LGA1151 processor. Based on the 14 nm "Coffee Lake Refresh" silicon, this processor has a base-frequency of 4.00 GHz, up from 3.60 GHz of the original; and an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, identical to the original i9-9900K, which has its max-turbo set at 5.00 GHZ, too. A revamped Turbo Boost algorithm is expected to yield significant gains in multi-core performance. The company didn't reveal TDP, pricing, or availability.

"Panic button".

A reliable source based in Taiwan shared with us the price-list of upcoming AMD Ryzen 3000 X570 chipset motherboards by leading manufacturer ASUS. These MSRP prices in U.S. Dollars paint a grim picture of these boards being significantly pricier than previous-generation motherboards based on the AMD X470 chipset. We already got hints of AMD X570 motherboards being pricey when MSI CEO Charles Chiang, who is known for not mincing his words in public, made it clear that the industry is no longer seeing AMD as a value-alternative second-fiddle brand to Intel, and that AMD will use its performance leadership to command premium pricing for these motherboards, even though across generations, pricing of AMD processors are going to remain flat. The Ryzen 7 3700X, for example, is launching at exactly the same $329 launch price as the Ryzen 7 2700X.

"horror story" on a rumor.

 

[ZoneDymo]

snip

Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.

 

[Vario]

Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.

The same news article without the hyperbole would have been fine. For example "Intel reduces prices by 15% in anticipation of competition from AMD's soon to be released Ryzen 2".

 

[efikkan]

Why so gloomy?
Isn't competition what we've been waiting for? As I've said many times before; this is when the fun begins, and we should expect price drops and many good deals.

I would wish they cut a few dollars more, getting i9-9900K closer to $400 and i7-9700K closer to $300, but this is a start.

 

[mahoney]

I wouldn't mind a locked 9900 for $380

 

[ZoneDymo]

The same news article without the hyperbole would have been fine. For example "Intel reduces prices by 15% in anticipation of competition from AMD's soon to be released Ryzen 2".

look ultimately embattled just means "being in a difficult spot" which is what Intel is in or going to be in very soon, so honestly that is just a perfectly fine way to describe it.
sure we can distance ourselves entirely and make it all seem typed by robots, just cold facts but that does not make for nice reading material.

 

[Crackong]

Can't wait to see a 9900T in Tiny office PCs for $300

 

[cucker tarlson]

Btarunr uses a lot of sensationalist language. For example 'embattled'. I think this site needs to maintain its professionalism and avoid hyperbole, bias, and sensationalism when discussing the various brands.



83% market share is not 'embattled'.

embattled - adj. "beset by problems or difficulties". "experiencing a lot of problems and likely to be defeated or destroyed" https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/embattled
The term is hyperbole, implying that Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy because of a future yet to be released competitor's processor.

in another example


"Panic button".




"horror story" on a rumor.

definitely something that emanates from his threads.tbh when I look at tpu's headlines I can already tell which ones were written by him.reminds of me of those clickbaity youtube channels.
tried to put him on ignore but that can't be done.

 

[efikkan]

Can't wait to see a 9900T in Tiny office PCs for $300

While there are uses for these low wattage CPUs, avoid then whenever you can.
Even the small Dell OptiPlexes with i7-7700(65W) or i7-8700(65W) reach the power limit with just a little load, and the tiny boxes with 35W CPUs get incredible loud just from surfing the web.

 

[trparky]

9900K would sell for $425

Yes, it would be cool if Intel sold a 9900K for $425 but you still have the added cost of having to buy a high-end cooler to cool it.

while there is a $400 3800X which is on par with single thread and better in multi-thread with less power consumption.

And there you have it folks, less power consumption which leads to less heat which of course leads to not having to buy such beefy and expensive cooling systems which of course brings the cost down for many of us. AMD even provides a more than adequate cooler in the box with the processor, Intel doesn't and even when Intel does provide a cooler they generally suck whereas AMD's included coolers don't suck.

 

[ironwolf]

And there you have it folks, less power consumption which leads to less heat which of course leads to not having to buy such beefy and expensive cooling systems which of course brings the cost down for many of us. AMD even provides a more than adequate cooler in the box with the processor, Intel doesn't and even when Intel does provide a cooler they generally suck whereas AMD's included coolers don't suck.

This x100. The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard. That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day. The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.

** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers

 

[Steevo]

I thought Intel had a CPU shortage and the price of several of their SKUs are already much higher than MSRP, so how is lowering prices going to help them to be competitive, if there's no stock in the channel?

Also, so many religious people at TPU today...

Are you not a believer heretic? Do you not pray to the silicon gods for higher IPC with low TDP?


Forgive him father for he has sinned, declaring the good works of advanced vector extensions dead, blasphemous speech against our savior SSE and bearing curses upon loose branch predictions causing our caches to miss.

May the silicon clock well, may your leakage be low, voltages stable, and cooling be adequate. May you remember the sins of the past, forgetting the plugging in of your cooling fan, the melting of a TEC, the sins of mixing metals in a loop.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yes, it would be cool if Intel sold a 9900K for $425 but you still have the added cost of having to buy a high-end cooler to cool it.

well if you don't have a pc already then yes.$425 is still pretty high.I mean it's better than $330 3700x but it's not $100 better.I understand $50-75 over 3700x cause it's gonna be faster for high refresh gaming and supports higher momory requencies,that's it.

 

[LemmingOverlord]

Complete rubbish! Intel, AMD and back-in-the-day, VIA and Cyrix all played the performance/price balancing game.. Intel and AMD are still doing it. This is just Intel responding to AMD's recent advances. IMHO, the price cuts have come very late.

Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.

My very first DIY PC was a Cyrix 6x86-P166 (my first actual x86 PC was a white-box 486SX). I haven't stopped shopping around since.

When Ryzen came along, sites rushed to claim Intel was slashing prices, but it never actually translated into anything of worth.

 

[TheLostSwede]

This x100. The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard. That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day. The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.

** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers

Except the one I got, as it got stuck in the back plate it screws into and I could barely remove it after having tested everything before installing my AIO liquid cooler. I guess that was a fluke, but not a great experience. That said, I've had crap experiences with the push-pin coolers too, especially when you try to re-use them, as apparently they're only meant to be installed once... And third party coolers with really crap mounting systems... I think the old AM3 coolers were some of the best to install, but maybe not the best in terms of making good contact with the CPU.

 

[Vario]

This x100. The in-box Intel coolers suck it hard. That push-pin design sucked on day 1 and still sucks to this day. The current Socket AM4 coolers** are a dream to use, they screw through the board and and don't suffer the issues the Intel coolers with the push-pins.

** = excludes the A6/8/10/12, Athlon coolers

On the other hand, its nice that Intel has had the same cooler hole spacing layout since 1156 for its mainstream platform.

 

[Dyatlov A]

Good, I want an i7-8086K for cheaper price.

 

[Jism]

Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.

My very first DIY PC was a Cyrix 6x86-P166 (my first actual x86 PC was a white-box 486SX). I haven't stopped shopping around since.

When Ryzen came along, sites rushed to claim Intel was slashing prices, but it never actually translated into anything of worth.

It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/Via. Those times are coming to an end now. AMD always offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.

I mean i had one of the first K7's at 600Mhz, which was a 750Mhz chip downclocked to fill in the 600Mhz space. With a simple trick having it running on nearly 800Mhz, where do you find such value even in the old days?

 

[londiste]

Not rubbish, mate. I've been in the biz since 1992. I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs (other than the occasional partner mail-in rebate or bundle) - not even when Thunderbird came out or when NetBurst proved to be a crap performer. I worked three years as a 3rd Party for Intel and had a really hard time understanding the corporate mindset behind remaining top on the price list, when Pentium 4 was a dud.

Intel did slash Pentium 4 prices when Athlon 64 became a contender.

AMD always offered high value for it's price.

Remember the dud that was socket 754? Socket 939 and 940? All of which ended up being replaced by AM2. Athlon FX CPUs?

 

[Vario]

It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/Via. Those times are coming to an end now. AMD always offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.

I mean i had one of the first K7's at 600Mhz, which was a 750Mhz chip downclocked to fill in the 600Mhz space. With a simple trick having it running on nearly 800Mhz, where do you find such value even in the old days?

Huh how is the FX a good value? If you bought a i7 920 back in 2008, or a 2500K or a 2600K in 2011, you could still be performing fine today, while the FX was obsolete before it was even released. Imagine having a platform like the X58, that still performs well 11 years after building it!

 

[cucker tarlson]

Good, I want an i7-8086K for cheaper price.

me too.
I'd either go 9900k or 8086k if I were upgrading now.Could go for 9900 non-K too if I found one at killer price.

It's because the "Intel" branding has succesfully done it's job. No matter the advantages, price cuts you will get at the competition, people are still stupid enough to think that any intel would be better then AMD/Via. Those times are coming to an end now.

Via ? are you talking now or two decades ago ?
also,nice way to greet "any" intel owners with you're "stupid enough" to buy it.though you're right,partially.seen people going with i5 7400 when 1600x was already out.but that's mostly ready made pc systems being pushed as first communion presents

AMD always offered high value for it's price. I've worked for 3 years with a FX platform and i can tell you even with all the FX bashing out there, it was so much fun on that one related to OC'ing that i always will stick with AMD.

Many would disagree,I'd agree but only up to a point.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I've been in the biz since 1992.

Oh, ok. Me? 1980.

I have never seen Intel cut prices on CPUs

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Dammeron]

Remember the dud that was socket 754? Socket 939 and 940? All of which ended up being replaced by AM2. Athlon FX CPUs?

Socket 939 was a dud? I guess my A64 Winchester and A64 X2 Venice that kicked Intel's ass were rubbish...

 

[phanbuey]

pretty sure they should be dropping the HEDT chips, if they haven't outright abandoned them altogether.