Friday, June 21st 2019

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

Intel is embattled in the client-segment desktop processor business, with AMD's imminent launch of its 3rd generation Ryzen desktop processors. Intel's 9th generation Core processors may lose their competitiveness to AMD's offerings, and are expected to get relieved by the company's "Ice Lake" desktop processors only in 2020. Until then, Intel will market its processors through price-cuts, promotions, bundles, and focusing on their gaming prowess. The company will refresh its HEDT (high-end desktop) processor lineup some time in Q3-2019. According to Taiwan-based industry observer DigiTimes citing sources in the motherboard industry, Intel's immediate response to 3rd generation Ryzen will be a series of price-cuts to products in its client-segment DIY retail channel.

According to these sources, prices of 9th generation Core processors could be cut by a minimum of 10 percent, and a maximum of 15 percent, varying by SKUs. This could see prices of popular gaming/enthusiast SKUs such as the Core i9-9900K, the i7-9700K, and the i5-9600K, drop by anywhere between $25 to $75. AMD is launching the Ryzen 9 3900X to compete with the i9-9900K, the Ryzen 7 3800X to compete with the i7-9700K, and the Ryzen 5 3600X to take on the i5-9600K. The three SKUs, according to AMD's internal testing, match the Intel chips at gaming, and beat them at content-creation tasks. At the heart of 3rd generation Ryzen processors is AMD's new Zen 2 microarchitecture, which brings significant IPC gains. AMD is also increasing core-counts on its mainstream desktop platform with the introduction of the Ryzen 9 family of 12-core and 16-core processors in the AM4 package.
Source: DigiTimes
Add your own comment

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

#51
mcraygsx
Glad to see INTEL might be looking to cut prices for once but why would anyone buy Processors that require micro updates and patches to fix hardware level vulnerabilities at this point.
Posted on Reply
#52
Manu_PT
cucker tarlson, post: 4068176, member: 173472"
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.


:confused:
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 :roll:



Many would disagree,I'd agree but only up to a point.
Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.
Posted on Reply
#53
Imsochobo
kapone32, post: 4067974, member: 181865"
The CPU shortage as i understand is more in the mobile and laptop markets than the desktop.
No, it's everywhere!
But with 14nm offloading, moving chipsets to 22nm and amd selling like hot cakes = lower demand = price drops possible.
Posted on Reply
#54
Melvis
Thanks AMD! But even with this % off I dont think a $800AUS 9900K is a good price compared to my $380 2700X some how :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#55
matar
10-15% That’s not enough...
Posted on Reply
#56
Vayra86
Manu_PT, post: 4068253, member: 168799"
Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.
Why do you always have to be full of nonsense everywhere you show your face? It doesn't help your credibility, in fact, it makes you look like a troll.

Take note of this vcore, and that is with -2AVX and a rigid LLC setting. A 'tiny' gap it seems between this and your wild claim, no?

Posted on Reply
#57
ypsylon
I think Intel got numbers wrong. Instead 51 they got 15%...

If they did that, then yeah they could stem the tide.
Posted on Reply
#58
cucker tarlson
Manu_PT, post: 4068253, member: 168799"
Imo i7 9700k is the best Intel offer and the only one I would consider. 8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v). Great at productivity and high refresh gaming without needing a 100€ cooler and having crazy high power draw + temps.
but that's the thing about gaming,compare 9900k v. 9700k,the usage on 16t vs 8t is lower.It's like taking a 900nm car for a cruise around the town.
Posted on Reply
#59
lexluthermiester
Vayra86, post: 4068379, member: 152404"
Take note of this vcore, and that is with -2AVX and a rigid LLC setting. A 'tiny' gap it seems between this and your wild claim, no?

[IMG alt="125477"]https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/1561185761381-png.125477/[/IMG]
Let's look at Intel's ark page for that CPU...
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html
Weird, no VID specs listed. The reason for this is simple; Each die tested/binned/sold can have a varying voltage requirement. I don't know where that graphic is from, but it doesn't prove your point. And to be fair the vast majority of the last 3 generations of CPU's from Intel have had stock voltages under 1.3v, most of them them well under.
Posted on Reply
#60
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068398, member: 134537"
Let's look at Intel's ark page for that CPU...
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186604/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html
Weird, no VID specs listed. The reason for this is simple; Each die tested/binned/sold can have a varying voltage requirement. I don't know where that graphic is from, but it doesn't prove your point.
that's from silicon lottery,if they can't hit 1.2-1.26v on their bins then don't expect many 9700k's in the wild.
Posted on Reply
#61
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068400, member: 173472"
that's from slilicon lottery,if they can't hit 1.2-1.26v on their bins then don't expect many 9700k's in the wild.
Link?
Posted on Reply
#62
cucker tarlson
siliconlottery.com

and stock all core boost for 9700k is 4.6ghz
Posted on Reply
#63
HenrySomeone
If this really happens, then Intel will once again be a no-brainer choice...:cool:
Posted on Reply
#64
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068403, member: 173472"
siliconlottery.com
Oh you mean this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k49g
How about this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k50g
Or perhaps this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k51g
And this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k52g

Are we noticing a trend with each progressive page? While we see an increase of price, we also see an increase of voltage, meaning that to get to the promised performance levels, one is required to overvolt and OC. While not a problem for most, @Manu_PT 's point was that at stock(or near stock) voltages the CPU in question performs well and without using too much power. @Vayra86 's response was a bit harsh and not all that accurate. And the example offered certainly didn't make his point for him. In fact it kinda worked against that point..
Posted on Reply
#65
john_
I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.
Posted on Reply
#67
HenrySomeone
john_, post: 4068412, member: 137560"
I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.
Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to dominate (Turd)Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still smash 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)
Posted on Reply
#68
lexluthermiester
HenrySomeone, post: 4068417, member: 186988"
Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to compete well against Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still compete with 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)
Fixed your statement so it is less childish and fanboy-like. Take note for future.
Posted on Reply
#69
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068409, member: 134537"
Oh you mean this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k49g
How about this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k50g
Or perhaps this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k51g
And this one?;
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9700k52g

Are we noticing a trend with each progressive page? While we see an increase of price, we also see an increase of voltage, meaning that to get to the promised performance levels, one is required to overvolt and OC. While not a problem for most, @Manu_PT 's point was that at stock(or near stock) voltages the CPU in question performs well and without using too much power. @Vayra86 's response was a bit harsh and not all that accurate. And the example offered certainly didn't make his point for him. In fact it kinda worked against that point..
no,he said 4.9,so not at stock.

HenrySomeone, post: 4068417, member: 186988"
Well, most people like the better performing chip and Coffee Lake will continue to dominate (Turd)Zen2 at thread parity and even below, especially in gaming (e.g I expect 9700k to still smash 3800x/3900x when both are OCed to the max)
lexluthermiester, post: 4068418, member: 134537"
Fixed your statement so it is less childish and fanboy-like. Take note for future.
let's both maybe wait for tests from gamersnexus before we do that,huh?
Posted on Reply
#70
HenrySomeone
Sure, we can wait, but all the telltale signs of what I said are already there - Zen2 barely matches CoffeeLake according to AMD's own claims...in Cinebench, lol! If we look at current chips that are roughly matched in it, we can see, that Intel wins in everything else and absolutely dominates in gaming. A good example is 2400g vs (non-k) 6700:
Posted on Reply
#71
efikkan
john_, post: 4068412, member: 137560"
I hope this time people will say "Thank you AMD" and buy AMD, not say "Thank you AMD" and buy Intel. If they keep doing the latter, this period of high competition and great offerings of CPU models in the market, will not last more than 2 years.
People should buy which ever product fits their needs the best at that time, for some that would be Intel, for others that would be AMD.

AMD have a huge fan base, and I expect them to sell well among custom builders. AMD's continued success is mostly dependent on themselves.
Posted on Reply
#72
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068422, member: 173472"
no,he said 4.9,so not at stock.
Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:
Manu_PT, post: 4068253, member: 168799"
8 physical cores that require acceptable voltage for 4,9ghz all cores (1,2v to 1,26v).
Which is not only possible but indeed likely.
Posted on Reply
#73
GinoLatino
First the price rises claiming shortage, now they "slash" prices... basically back to what they where?
Posted on Reply
#74
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068426, member: 134537"
Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:

Which is not only possible but indeed likely.
you just looked at silicon lottery bins,the cherry picked ones require +1.3v for 4.9ghz
the hell is wrong with you?
Posted on Reply
#75
HenrySomeone
efikkan, post: 4068425, member: 150226"
People should buy which ever product fits their needs the best at that time, for some that would be Intel, for others that would be AMD.

AMD have a huge fan base, and I expect them to sell well among custom builders. AMD's continued success is mostly dependent on themselves.
In principle, that is true, but in reality, Intel is better (or would be better) for over 90% of people. AMD is only really better in some very limited scenarios, mostly for workstations where a lot of rendering type loads are being done, then sth like a 2950x (or a cheaper 1920x or even 1700 on the budget side) can somewhat shine over a comparably priced Intel
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment