HTCThat's a very valid reason for the IGP and, other than a "fall back" for main GPU failure, it's pretty much the only one, unless there are other reasons that aren't occurring to me right now.

I'm just curious about AMD's response - can't wait to see the market balance occur and that's when the consumers get the best time - I'll need to save for hardware shopping, after I've saved for a 9980xe and a custom loop that is.

intel still trying to f** their customers with same 14nm cr*p. since microsoft open sourced all their patents, I hope there will be arm powered stable computer that doesn't rely on any x86 instructions, soon, and kill intel, for good.

XXL_AII hope there will be arm powered stable computer that doesn't rely on any x86 instructions, soon, and kill intel, for good.

We'll see - arm isn't anywhere near as capable as intel and amd.

Xx Tek Tip xXThe fx 9590 was a failure, It's a poor example. We'll see sales figures with this 9900k - I still think it's a joke to sell a mainstream processor at this price though, But we'll see.


Comparing a handbag to technology? Get outta here, Well of course nobodys forcing me to buy it - My point is this is basically a HEDT chip .

- Failure or not, it had an MSRP that was far higher than this 9900K and it had it for, mostly, the exact same reasons: high clocks, 8 cores, the top end of the product lineup for AMD. Intel 9900K is 100% the same. Whether its a failure or not remains to be seen - that will decide whether the MSRP will be maintained or, in the case of the FX9590, slashed in half (and then some).

- Both Intel 9900K and a handbag are luxuries. You can do the same work with any other CPU, albeit slower. You can carry your wallet in any other handbag, at lower cost, and looking less good.

You may consider things a joke, and that's fine, but that doesn't change reality. You value a CPU over a handbag, not everyone does. You don't value the top-end performance of a 9900K at the price point it is at, but others do. The similarities are all over the place, you need to start seeing them.

Vayra86- Failure or not, it had an MSRP that was far higher than this 9900K and it had it for, mostly, the exact same reasons: high clocks, 8 cores, the top end of the product lineup for AMD. Intel 9900K is 100% the same. Whether its a failure or not remains to be seen - that will decide whether the MSRP will be maintained or, in the case of the FX9590, slashed in half (and then some).

- Both Intel 9900K and a handbag are luxuries. You can do the same work with any other CPU, albeit slower. You can carry your wallet in any other handbag, at lower cost, and looking less good.

You may consider things a joke, and that's fine, but that doesn't change reality. You value a CPU over a handbag, not everyone does. You don't value the top-end performance of a 9900K at the price point it is at, but others do. The similarities are all over the place, you need to start seeing them.

The price is the price - buy it if you need it - my main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.

btarunrThey're all 1080p. Their justification is they're simulating a CPU-limited scenario.

False.
They precisely said the choice is because 1080p is the most popular resolution on Steam and it lowers the probability of GPU bottleneck. The Steam part is quite important.

Xx Tek Tip xXFair enough, for me paying that money out for a quad core in current days would be pathetic however you used it for bench marking which will justify the cost if you've got the cash - in this current era consumers have actually found out they buy what meets their needs, both companies are here to make money and the only way amd can compete is by giving us products at the lowest cost possible against the intel counterpart along with still making money.

The argument here is about how much margin is there for the CPU maker. High margins made Intel a stable, huge, multi-sector giant that it is today.
Low margins made AMD a relatively small, highly specialized company that makes 2 kinds of products, but only one good at a time.
At this point AMD's CPU lineup doesn't even cover the whole Intel offer, i.e. they don't have competing products for a big chunk of what Intel has.

And it's x86 processors were talking about. They run our civilization. And we only have 2 large makers.
This means that if this price war results in financial troubles, Intel will be bailed out just like big banks were during the last crisis. And do you really want a state-owned CPU manufacturer? :-)

And zen 3 would be the 3rd ryzen processor series to be on am4 unlike intel doing 2 series a board

Zen 3 is far away. We got Zen and Zen+ for now. Zen 2 is expected to come in 2019 and year after that we should get a new socket or a Zen 2+ at best.

Xx Tek Tip xXThen tell us, Why did they put a £600 cpu on a MAINSTREAM platform? That's like grabbing a 7900x and shoving it into z370 - it's a HEDT cpu not intended for a mainstream platform - the entire point is it being available to a LARGE audience that's what the mainstream is for.

Why not? Why do we even need 2 sockets for consumers? :o
HEDT is just a showcase product. It has no meaningful position in Intel's lineup. It's not made for professional use, it's not the best choice for gaming and it's way overpowered for any other consumer use case.
We should be happy that Intel is moving high-core CPUs to the mainstream offer.

Xx Tek Tip xXmy main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.

Didn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?

I have to be curious though, what's with Intel yelling about gaming performance, especially around 9900K. Shouldn't that be objectively faster than 2700x in everything?

londisteDidn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?

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.

notbWhy not? Why do we even need 2 sockets for consumers? :eek:
HEDT is just a showcase product. It has no meaningful position in Intel's lineup. It's not made for professional use, it's not the best choice for gaming and it's way overpowered for any other consumer use case.
We should be happy that Intel is moving high-core CPUs to the mainstream offer.

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.

londisteDidn't AMD start with that last year, even at the exact same price point?

How so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?

londistewhat's with Intel yelling about gaming performance

They are simply trying to appeal to the only kinds of people that would be interested in this sort of product. And those are 8700K and 7700K users. Everyone else would either go for X299 or TR at that price point if they seek workstation type use cases or go to the much cheaper Ryzen CPUs or 8th gen Intel.

notbAnd it's x86 processors were talking about. They run our civilization. And we only have 2 large makers.
This means that if this price war results in financial troubles, Intel will be bailed out just like big banks were during the last crisis. And do you really want a state-owned CPU manufacturer? :)

Of course, Please state where I said not to buy intel - that's not my decision, I'm just stating an opinion.

Vya DomusHow so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?

Exactly - How is ryzen poorly priced? An 8c16t intel processor cpu costs a hell of a lot more than a 8c16t ryzen.

Vya DomusHow so ? You mean first gen Ryzen ?

Yes. 1800X debuted with $499 MSRP.
From Intel's ARK 9900K Recommended Customer Price is $488 - $499.

Xx Tek Tip xXHow is ryzen poorly priced?

It's not even about the price, there were no competing products from Intel in that segment. And I would say AMD had a fairly wide price range for those first gen Ryzen CPUs, from 300$ to 500$, and that upper bound is similar to Intel's pricing.

londisteYes. 1800X debuted with $499 MSRP.
From Intel's ARK 9900K Recommended Customer Price is $488 - $499.

And ? What are you trying to say ?

Vya Domusthere were no competing products from Intel in that segment.

Exactly - the 1800x could sell like mad at the price they wanted, because intel had nothing to offer but HEDT cpus at a higher cost, that justified the pricing - at this stage however the 9900ks price isn't justified, the 8700k offers superior value in every way if you want to use intel. The difference is minimal yet the cost is massively different.

It wasn't what I was trying to say but what @Xx Tek Tip xX said.

Xx Tek Tip xXmy main point is the fact that they're ramping up the cost high for a mainstream processor which isn't good for the consumer.

londisteIt wasn't what I was trying to say but what @Xx Tek Tip xX said.

Your clearly not thinking correctly here, Show me a intel 6c12t that came out before the 1800x did.

The point is intel was milking people from 4c8t's - the 1800x's price is only justified then - it's twice the cores and threads than the 6700k/7700k - by putting this price they would rip through intels marketshare - that's also why they cut the MSRP for when zen+ dropped, they needed the cash to compete - there is already a 8c16t amd processor and yet intel shoves up the msrp pretending ryzen doesn't exist.

HTCThat's a very valid reason for the IGP and, other than a "fall back" for main GPU failure, it's pretty much the only one, unless there are other reasons that aren't occurring to me right now.

How about simply not having to use a dGPU? :-)
The CPUs we're discussing now are all unlocked variants for custom build systems. But non-K variants will follow soon.
AMD is locked at 4 cores with their Ryzen APUs. Intel offers 6 and will move to 8 soon enough.
Funny how a company that can make both high-end CPUs and GPUs, is voluntarily marginalized in the IGP market...

People fail to understand - FX was a FAILURE - We can't hide the fact that intel crushed it with skylake, I owned a am3+ system myself and felt ripped off and moved to intel, You can't ignore the fact that AMD is the underdog - if their product is rubbish the company is at threat - they are not intel, they are basically broke in comparison. Ryzen HAD to be priced high, it was an opportunity you can't miss and the ONLY way back into the game - if they priced it cheap they won't make enough profit - their staff has to get paid and that is nowhere near cheap. By selling it at this price it brought them back to compete - if you worked for their marketing team and priced the 1800x at much less than that - You would've made AMD fail and you would've been sued for sabotage. The 1800x also helped AMD gain R&D - If you haven't realized intel invests BILLIONS - AMD have nowhere near that even raja from radeon said it HIMSELF. And your forgetting that AMD is not just a processor manufacturer they are dual yielding the graphics AND processor market - intel had tried to get into the graphics market but have failed to multiple times - they're even trying to by 2020 now.
R&D was also the reason vega was considered a failure: They only had 10% of the resources nvidia has and AMD is competing in 2 markets not one.

Vayra86Companies are not 'accountable' for the pricing of their product stack. That's just the choice they make, and the market determines whether they stick or they don't.

There are way too many people on this forum and elsewhere that suffer from this disease called 'entitlement'. What it means? 'I used to buy this sort of CPU for amount X a number of years ago, so I should be able to do the same today' is one example of it. Entitlement means ignoring every circumstance but your own desires to convince yourself of some twisted truth.

That is exactly what happens on GPU since Pascal and the mining craze and it also happens Intel CPUs because there are cheaper alternatives. Ignoring the fact that Intel still has a performance crown and charges premium for it, because 'I used to be able to buy an i7 in the Haswell days and that was the best Intel had, too'. For GPU: entitlement is why people end up ignoring obvious 'too good to be true' situations and buy cheap knock-offs that turn out to be fakes or half broken cards. And get mad at Nvidia for exploiting their current position. Realistically, though, if you want to get what you want at a lower price, you need to simply not buy something. Restraint is fast becoming a rare quality these days. And whenever you say such a thing, a bunch of people will respond with 'but others will buy it anyway so what's the point' - thát is entitlement (or 'fear of missing out'). Others buy it, so why should I miss out? Why can they have what I can't?

Accountability applies to responsibilities. Entitlement applies to desire. And none of us 'need' this hardware to live. Intel has no 'responsibility' to provide us with a product that is reasonably priced for anyone's (realistic or not) standards.

Ironically, you don't even 'need' an Intel 9900K to play games, not even remotely close. You can suffice with far cheaper alternatives and still have a rig that lasts 5 years+. Spoiler: its still not going to be a 2700X as the optimal choice - not even when perf/dollar is your concern. This whole topic title is wrong on so many levels.

Except I don't, I said the same thing in the Pascal thread as well. If something is not in my budget, & I may or may not "want" it, I won't buy it.

Conveniently, of course, you side stepped the issues I listed in the 2nd para. Why are corporations able to make so much money, pay so few taxes & continue to exert an ever increasing influence over our lives & in politics too?

I'm sure you won't address it, since that's off topic but there seems to be a trend here & one which I don't agree with.

Entitlement is a funny word, because I find it slightly amusing that corporations can show misleading results & yet are entitled to all the profits based on those results? Do you remember 3.5GB from you know who?

coozie78Not flaming here but your $50 difference in price is a little disingenuous, how can you fairly compare a full AMD build with an Intel one when you already have the RAM for the Intel build? By the time you factor in memory and CPU cooler the Intel build would be far more expensive...Like I said, not flaming, just pointing out your comment was inaccurate/unfair.

And I got the joke BTW. :)

I don’t, the prices is today’s prices for cpu and MEM for both setups, Motherboard excluded

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.

R0H1TExcept I don't, I said the same thing in the Pascal thread as well. If something is not in my budget, & I may or may not "want" it, I won't buy it.

Conveniently, of course, you side stepped the issues I listed in the 2nd para. Why are corporations able to make so much money, pay so few taxes & continue to exert an ever increasing influence over our lives & in politics too?

I'm sure you won't address it, since that's off topic but there seems to be a trend here & one which I don't agree with.

Entitlement is a funny word, because I find it slightly amusing that corporations can show misleading results & yet are entitled to all the profits based on those results? Do you remember 3.5GB from you know who?

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.

cadavecaA top-level CPU of any generation should be considered a luxury, and priced accordingly. They should be rare, and not mass-produced. They should NOT be in everyone's computer. Nobody REALLY needs that in their personal PC, anyway.

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.

StrayKATI imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.

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.

Xx Tek Tip xXChances are people here are being paid to regurgitate trash

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

MetroidIntel 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.