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

#76
Vayra86
@lexluthermiester Do you even read before you start responding... or stop to wonder why the response ís 'harsh'. You guys should know by now that I'm allergic to bullshit. Just own up to a mistake that's made and stop spreading BS. Inflated claims like this are not helping anyone, and you coming in with misguided 'moderation' is probably even worse.

lexluthermiester, post: 4068409, member: 134537"
Oh you mean [...snip worthless examples]

@Manu_PT[/USER] 's point was that at stock(or near stock) voltages...
Really now?

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.
Crawl back into your caves and let this go now please. Thanks & have a good weekend.
Posted on Reply
#77
cucker tarlson
HenrySomeone, post: 4068429, member: 186988"
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
let's maybe aviod poor wording in the future,for the sake of us all having to read it.

in general this is true,in gaming 8700k beats 2700x consistently,just look at those differences in minimums in 1080p testing.



2700x isn't that great ecept for rendering

https://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/2018/cfl_r/vs/9600k_2700x_oc.svg
Posted on Reply
#78
lexluthermiester
Vayra86, post: 4068430, member: 152404"
@lexluthermiester Do you even read before you start responding...
Certainly did. Yes, yes.
Vayra86, post: 4068430, member: 152404"
or stop to wonder why the response ís 'harsh'.
No wondering needed. You can be a bit of a dink sometimes. Not all the time, but in this instance yeah.
Vayra86, post: 4068430, member: 152404"
I'm allergic to bullshit.
:laugh:
So what you're saying is, you're allergic to yourself then?
Vayra86, post: 4068430, member: 152404"
Really now?
Yuppers.

You seem to have missed the context on this one. Manu's point was well within the realm of reality and possibility. Your misunderstanding and overreaction was the problem not his statement.
Posted on Reply
#80
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068428, member: 173472"
you just looked at silicon lottery bins,the cherry picked ones require +1.3v for 4.9ghz
the hell is wrong with you?
Clearly context is being missed by you and Vayra86..
Posted on Reply
#81
Vayra86
lexluthermiester, post: 4068435, member: 134537"
Certainly did. Yes, yes.

No wondering needed. You can be a bit of a dink sometimes. Not all the time, but in this instance yeah.

:laugh:
So what you're saying is, you're allergic to yourself then?

Yuppers.

You seem to have missed the context on this one. Manu's point was well within the realm of reality and possibility. Your misunderstanding and overreaction was the problem not his statement.
I'll wait for your examples and sources of 9700K's that do 4.9 Ghz all core under 1.2-1.26V okay?

By the way, you're on the shortlist for ignore pretty quickly this way. YOU, speaking of context... you drunk?
Posted on Reply
#82
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068437, member: 134537"
Clearly context is being missed by you and Vayra86..
in what context is 4.9 1.2v the same as 4.9 1.33v ?
Posted on Reply
#83
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4068436, member: 173472"
here comes cascade quoting,he's mad.
I actually did want to add 'Inb4 multiquote spree' in my last post. I'll store that crystal ball now :)

Good entertainment nonetheless. But it has gone on far too long already now.
Posted on Reply
#84
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068436, member: 173472"
here comes cascade quoting,he's mad.
Nope, not at all. I'm actually quite amused by the fact that the two of you seem to have missed a very simple point.
Posted on Reply
#85
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068441, member: 134537"
Nope, not at all. I'm actually quite amused by the fact that the two of you seem to have missed a very simple point.
what is the point then ? would you like to tell us the point now ?
Posted on Reply
#86
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068439, member: 173472"
in what context is 4.9 1.2v the same as 4.9 1.33v ?
How about that very fact that siliconlottery.com exists? The variability is silicon. For example, some CPU's OC better on reduced voltage rather than increased.

Understand the context yet? Manu's statement was valid and you two are over-reacting.

Vayra86, post: 4068440, member: 152404"
Good entertainment nonetheless. But it has gone on far too long already now.
Agreed on both points. Let's let it go.
Posted on Reply
#87
Vayra86
lexluthermiester, post: 4068426, member: 134537"
Manu_PT didn't say stock, I did. He said:

Which is not only possible but indeed likely.
No it is not likely, it is a BS statement that not even a company that specifically sells overclocked CPUs and does additional binning cannot produce - not even remotely close in fact.

The fact that you started rambling about stock is completely out of context here. But in your tiny mind, anything YOU say is somehow relevant, regardless of the discussion you're getting into. And then you act all arrogant about it as if the rest was talking out of their ass.

Horrible, horrible behavior.

lexluthermiester, post: 4068443, member: 134537"
Agreed on both points. Let's let it go.
You had that chance a page ago but decided to start 'moderating' - and not even just me, but other posts too. Disgusting.

What's next, you're going to tell us you were joking and that this was super obvious 'how could we miss that'? You've done it before. Blegh.

Here's what you should do: reflect on this conversation and indeed: do not try to get the last word. The only apt response here is mea culpa.
Posted on Reply
#88
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068443, member: 134537"
How about that very fact that siliconlottery.com exists? The variability is silicon.
yes,and the point of their existence is selling better silicon,not worse.

I don't know why you're trying to be deliberately vague.
Posted on Reply
#89
lexluthermiester
Vayra86, post: 4068446, member: 152404"
The fact that you started rambling about stock is completely out of context here.
It was meant to be a point of reference, which you clearly missed.
Vayra86, post: 4068446, member: 152404"
But in your tiny mind, anything YOU say is somehow relevant, regardless of the discussion you're getting into. And then you act all arrogant about it as if the rest was talking out of their ass.
Um, ok. Rage much?
Vayra86, post: 4068446, member: 152404"
Horrible, horrible behavior.
Irony.
cucker tarlson, post: 4068447, member: 173472"
yes,and the point of their existence is selling better silicon,not worse.
Their existence is to provide guaranteed CPU performance at certain specs through testing. That doesn't mean that other people can't get their own results, or even better results at different specs.

I'm out as the two of you seem to be letting your pride react instead of using critical, rational thinking.
Posted on Reply
#90
Vayra86
Don't let the door hit you in the ass while you do
Posted on Reply
#91
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068449, member: 134537"
Their existence is to provide guaranteed CPU performance at certain specs through testing. That doesn't mean that other people can't get their own results, or even better results at different specs.
while it doesn't exclude a person getting lucky,it does exclude other ppl finding 9700k hits 4.9 at much lower voltage in general.
if SL can't get their 9700k's to run 4.9 at 1.20-1.26v.,or those that do are later what becomes their top 10% 5.2ghz bins,then the majority won't.You get it now?
Posted on Reply
#92
Aerpoweron
Hi guys. First of all it is great to see that competition works :)

But i want to see real Benchmark results. With all the surrounding facts listed. Especially how the 9900k does compared to the 8 core Zen 2. But with the power draw shown over time.

The 9900k i run draws roughly 180W with my computational load and all settings at Standard in the Bios.

I want to know what the official intel spec is, on how long the CPU is allowed to run at a specific power draw. Same from AMD and then compare them under the specified conditions. It should be done on at least 10 CPUs of each model. More would be even better. Then we have a good average. After that you can go with overclocking and power draw shown.

You have to get the right settings in the Bios for each Board you use, since the standard settings ignore the intel specs regarding power draw.

All this seems to be an awful lot of work. I really hope someone or even a group has the resources for that.

After such a broad benchmark run we should have some idea what variances are there at the silicon quality regarding stock performance within the specs, and what to expect from overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#93
JB_Gamer
ShurikN, post: 4067951, member: 140585"
Intel and price-cuts... I'll believe it when I see it.
I will not even look for it
Posted on Reply
#94
theoneandonlymrk
cucker tarlson, post: 4068433, member: 173472"
let's maybe aviod poor wording in the future,for the sake of us all having to read it.

in general this is true,in gaming 8700k beats 2700x consistently,just look at those differences in minimums in 1080p testing.



2700x isn't that great ecept for rendering

https://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/mbrzostek/2018/cfl_r/vs/9600k_2700x_oc.svg
Maybe if people were not so freak in polar.

At 1080p 144hz ONLY then intel is king lower Hz it doesn't matter for 98% If people.

At 1440p it hardly matters.

At 4k60hz an Fx8350 will keep up with a 9900K never mind ryzen, CPU matters little Atm.

The cuts are a start.
Posted on Reply
#95
cucker tarlson
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4068464, member: 82332"
At 4k60hz an Fx8350 will keep up with a 9900K never mind ryzen, CPU matters little Atm.
bold claim,please prove it with tests.there's so many games that fx is not even close to 60 that what you're claiming here seems pretty incredible to me.how does it keep up with 9900k at 4k60 when it'll regularly drop into 40s at 1080p





in the video at 1440p you can already see ryzen is a few fps slower consistently,and that's stock 1080Ti with ultra preset.For a person who runs 1440p with an oc'd 1080ti and performance optimized settings the 1080p result is much more relevant.
please accept that your subjective opinion is not equal to peformance numbers.
Posted on Reply
#96
Aerpoweron
cucker tarlson, post: 4068467, member: 173472"
bold claim,please prove it with tests.
at 1440p you can already see ryzen is a few fps slower consistently,and that's stock 1080Ti with ultra preset.For a person who runs 1440p with an oc'd 1080ti and performance optimized settings he 1080p result is much more relevant.
please accept that your subjective opinion is not equal to peformance numbers.
I can offer a Fx8370 and a Vega 64 for testing. Only have a 1440p display here. And the 9900k is currently without a mainboard (molten EPS power plug --> RMA). If someone could help me to set up the super resolution thing i can try to compare the 4790k to the Fx8370 with the Vega 64. That should give some results. But what games / benchmarks to use? Win10 1903, with it's updated scheduler should help a little as well.
Posted on Reply
#97
cucker tarlson
Aerpoweron, post: 4068470, member: 140366"
I can offer a Fx8370 and a Vega 64 for testing. Only have a 1440p display here. And the 9900k is currently without a mainboard (molten EPS power plug --> RMA). If someone could help me to set up the super resolution thing i can try to compare the 4790k to the Fx8370 with the Vega 64. That should give some results. But what games / benchmarks to use? Win10 1903 i hope.
that would be a pretty interesting read actuallly if you could make a thread comparing fx to 4790k at 1440p.
the bigger question that "what game" is what testing place in that game.

frankly I found my 4790k inadequate for gtx 1080 at 1440p in some scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#98
damric
Intel should unlock back the base clock overclocking abilities on the non-k skus. That would make me happy. Z170 is so much more fun than 200 or 300 because of that.
Posted on Reply
#99
Aerpoweron
cucker tarlson, post: 4068471, member: 173472"
that would be a pretty interesting read actuallly if you could make a thread comparing fx to 4790k at 1440p.
the bigger question that "what game" is what testing place in that game.

frankly I found my 4790k inadequate for gtx 1080 at 1440p in some scenarios.
I will try to keep in mind to make such a thread. But i have to test it with most of the Hardware around the CPUs as equal as possible. I would go for 16GB of DDR3 1600MHz memory. 2 or 4 slots? Have to see what i have. I need some setup time as well. And if the Mainboard for the 9900k is back i could include the i9 as well.
Even tho the 4790k is limited in some cases, it still hold up pretty well for gaming.
You can also take a look at my i9 9900k thread, i would be happy about any ideas.
Posted on Reply
#100
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
kapone32, post: 4067970, member: 181865"
Too little too late.....for now. I am sure Intel will come back but I really do not see it happening anytime soon.
Too little too late? you can't buy a 3000 series Ryzen yet, hec they haven't even been comprehensively reviewed by 3rd parties yet.

I am all for AMD hitting back and hitting back hard, but I'll believe the "RIP Intel" sentiment when I see it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment