Wednesday, September 12th 2018

More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges

Intel is debuting its first wave of 9th generation Core desktop processors with three models later this year - the 6-core/6-thread Core i5-9600K, the 8-core/8-thread Core i7-9700K, and the 8-core/16-thread Core i9-9900K. We've been very curious about how the entry of the Core i9 extension to the mainstream-desktop LGA1151 platform would affect pricing of the Core i5 and Core i7 K-series SKUs, especially given that the i7-9700K is the first Core i7 SKU in a decade to lack HyperThreading. An updated catalog by a major Singapore-based PC components distributor adds more clarity.

Singapore-based PC component distributor BizGram, in its latest catalog, disclosed the all-inclusive retail prices of the three new processors. As Redditor Dylan522p suggests, if you do the SGD-USD conversion and subtract all taxes, you get ominous-looking SEP prices for the three. Intel could price the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99. The Core i7-9700K could be priced at $349.99. The flagship Core i9-9900K could go for $449.99. These seem like highly plausible pre-tax launch prices for the three chips, and fit into the competitive landscape.
At $250, the Core i5-9600K could blunt the slight price-performance edge the Ryzen 5 2600X has over the current i5-8600K, with its 2-3% performance increment. An early review of the Core i7-9700K is already out, which suggests that it could emerge the ultimate gaming CPU, with multi-threaded performance trading blows with the Ryzen 7 2700X. The Core i9-9900K could entice enthusiasts and quasi pro-sumers with its 16 MB L3 cache and 16-thread multi-threaded advantage. Given that AMD sought $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X at launch, $450 seems only fair. Source: BizGram
Add your own comment

147 Comments on More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges

#1
dwade
Under $500 is a steal. 1800x came out at $500 and that was the worst deal of all deals.
Posted on Reply
#2
ArchStupid
That 9900K looks absolutely delicious.
Posted on Reply
#3
dwade
ArchStupid said:
That 9900K looks absolutely delicious.
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.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheOne
I hope this pricing is right, though I'm personally waiting to see if retailers will discount the 7700K when the 9th generation launches.
Posted on Reply
#5
las
dwade said:
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 gaming I think the 9700K will be superior.
8700K performs better in 9 out of 10 games with HT disabled. In the last game it's a draw.
HT off means higher OC / lower temp.

HT does nothing for gaming unless core count is too low and 8 cores at 5 GHz or more is going to rip thru games for years to come.

If you don't believe this, go search YouTube, plenty of proof. Performs drops with HT enabled.
Same things happends with Ryzen when SMT is enabled.

Also, HT has Foreshadow bug. So for mainly gaming, I don't see the reason to get the i9.

Lastly, why would you get 2080 Ti? 12nm ripoff with full RTX focus (yet too weak to run games with RTX anyway).
Nvidia could easily have used 7nm but went the milking route. Yeah I'll keep my 1080 Ti till 7nm hits.
Posted on Reply
#6
dj-electric
las said:
For gaming I think the 9700K will be superior.

8700K performs better in 9 out of 10 games with HT disabled. In the last game it's a draw.

HT does NOTHING for gaming unless core count is too low and 8 cores at 5 GHz or more is going to rip thru games for years to come.

If you don't believe this, go search YouTube. Performs drops with HT enabled. Same things happends on Ryzen with SMT in most games.

Also, HT has Foreshadow bug. So for mainly gaming, I don't see the reason to get the glorified i9.
I highly concur all of this. 8C\8T is the ultimate setup for any modern game and multitasking, and in the near future as well. Extremely solid and does not suffer from all sorts of workload issues associated with HT on a high core count.
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
The 9900K should have been 16c/16t. Now, that would be significant.
Posted on Reply
#8
Tsukiyomi91
I think the i9-9900K would be the new pick since you don't need to spend a fortune on a HEDT motherboard to utilize it. Deal breaker would be the i5-9600K as its $250 price tag is kinda decent.
Posted on Reply
#9
techy1
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 .
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
Tsukiyomi91 said:
I think the i9-9900K would be the new pick since you don't need to spend a fortune on a HEDT motherboard to utilize it. Deal breaker would be the i5-9600K as its $250 price tag is kinda decent.
But has a toothpaste under IHS which sucks big time.
Posted on Reply
#11
las
RejZoR said:
But has a toothpaste under IHS which sucks big time.
All K-models should get STIM / Solder
Posted on Reply
#12
john_
dwade said:
Under $500 is a steal. 1800x came out at $500 and that was the worst deal of all deals.
It was a great deal considering what Intel was asking for a 4 core/8 threads CPU the previous 6 years. It was looking as a the worst deal because there was a 1700X at an incredible $399 price and a 1700 at an unbelievable $329 price.
Posted on Reply
#13
Caring1
dwade said:
... I've already pre-preordered it mentally.
From your post history, it's obvious you do everything mentally :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#14
dwade
john_ said:
It was a great deal considering what Intel was asking for a 4 core/8 threads CPU the previous 6 years. It was looking as a the worst deal because there was a 1700X at an incredible $399 price and a 1700 at an unbelievable $329 price.
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.
Posted on Reply
#15
Tsukiyomi91
@RejZoR you can always delid it. If people can OC it to 5 under water, then it uses a really good toothpaste xD
Posted on Reply
#16
las
john_ said:
It was a great deal considering what Intel was asking for a 4 core/8 threads CPU the previous 6 years. It was looking as a the worst deal because there was a 1700X at an incredible $399 price and a 1700 at an unbelievable $329 price.
It was a bad deal. The end. 1700X and 1700 used same chip and hit same OC.
Posted on Reply
#17
techy1
dwade said:
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 $500 price tag but we get it for less than that. Great job Intel. Continue leading us forward.
I wish only you would would get 500$ or even more or as much as you wish, heck - you can even find somewhere - i7-6900X for msrp - 1100$ - go for it buddy (thisi7 is EOLed, 8c/16t cpu is not so old and it ipc is almost as good as the "9"-th gen), but we others will pay as less as we can for 6th gen level of ipc on old z170 - I did mean z390 board.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vya Domus
las said:
It was a bad deal. The end. 1700X and 1700 used same chip and hit same OC.
It certainly was a bad deal when Intel's only 8 core part at the time was a thousand fucking dollars.
Posted on Reply
#19
las
Vya Domus said:
It certainly was a bad deal when Intel's only 8 core part at the time was a thousand fucking dollars.
Who cares when AMDs 8 cores still lost to Intels 4 cores in most programs and especially games.

Early Ryzen adoptors were guinea pigs. Memory comp sucked bigtime. People bought crap memory, found out later that they needed Samsung B-die chips to get reasonable performance. Sadly these kits are 50% more expensive. Ryzen without Samsung B-die is meh. Needs at least 3200/C14.

Please don't compare AMD cores with Intel cores 1:1 - AMD cores are inferior. This is why AMD needs more to deliver same perf. Sad but true. Maybe Zen 2 at 7nm will bring 4.5 GHz to Ryzen.

Are you seriously using FX6300? Then please don't talk bad about Intel 4 cores.
Posted on Reply
#20
cuneytcam
dwade said:
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.
You managed to reach a conclusion of intel leading you forward, actually continuing to leading you forward as if there were not 2nd gen to 8th gen charade (or many other in the past). If intel is continuing anything that could be continuing low-life, criminal, opportunist, outright lying business practices like many other corps. The bias is extreme in your comment, if there is a international company that deserves "great job" it is definetaly not intel.
Posted on Reply
#21
Prima.Vera
techy1 said:
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 essentially agree, however I'm in the market for a new CPU, for two reasons: In Games, the most important are the MINIMUM frame-rates, not the average ones, and especially when you are on a map with 64 consecutive players, you'll understand immediately what minimum fps means. ;)
I also need 16 threads in order to faster encode the movies for the PS4, because the internal player is so retarded and useless, it can only play very limited type of video/audio files.
Posted on Reply
#22
las
Both AMD and Intel sucks right now. Ryzen has crap gaming perf and Intel uses pigeon poop.
9th gen is going to be good. The soldered chips atleast.
I just hope Intel sticks to solder on all future K-models.
Posted on Reply
#23
ZoneDymo
dwade said:
Under $500 is a steal. 1800x came out at $500 and that was the worst deal of all deals.
Troll account right?
Posted on Reply
#24
Hood
RejZoR said:
But has a toothpaste under IHS which sucks big time.
Hey it gives the delidders something to do, and perpetuates the delid tool industry.
RejZoR said:
The 9900K should have been 16c/16t. Now, that would be significant
Yes, Intel could build that, but it would be as pointless as Threadripper to the vast majority. 8/8 is more than enough for 99.9%.
cuneytcam said:
You managed to reach a conclusion of intel leading you forward, actually continuing to leading you forward as if there were not 2nd gen to 8th gen charade (or many other in the past). If intel is continuing anything that could be continuing low-life, criminal, opportunist, outright lying business practices like many other corps. The bias is extreme in your comment, if there is a international company that deserves "great job" it is definetaly not intel.
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" :laugh:
las said:
Who cares when AMDs 8 cores still lost to Intels 4 cores in most programs and especially games.
You were supposed to forget that under the constant barrage of Ryzen fanboy "exaggerations" and fake Cinebench scores :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
Animalpak
Im gonna upgrade from 4790K to a 9900K hope will be the right choice.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment