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

#101
HwGeek
Who would like to work as the Salesmen department of Intel? How would you close CPU deals in today's market situation?
Just look at the leaked prices of the New 64C EPYCs :-).
Posted on Reply
#102
theoneandonlymrk
cucker tarlson, post: 4068467, member: 173472"
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.
Opinion, I used an fx with this monitor , at 4k ultra settings, almost all games (AAA new releases , I played as they came out , mostly fps) are GPU limited not AT ALL CPU.
I agree it's a bold claim but none the less GPU bottleneck Is what it is.
My Fx lives on, years after I bought it but not in my handds unfortunately.
Posted on Reply
#103
EarthDog
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.
Premature speculation. Heres a tissue to clean up after yourself. :p
Posted on Reply
#104
theoneandonlymrk
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.
1440p why you leveraging that shit 4k they will be equal at 1440p there's a difference that 98% of the pc buying world wont notice or care about because they care more about shoes and cars and cost matters most. Simple.

What they're best served by matters nought.

And quit with the trolling bullshit a 2700x is not just good for rendering you name brand epeen snob.
Get on topic, price cuts are needed, good for all, as is choice.
Go Intel, fight on.
Posted on Reply
#105
cucker tarlson
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4068509, member: 82332"
you name brand epeen snob.
go on.

I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k,got a bunch of insults in response.typical.
of course if fx can't deliver 60 fps in every game it won't do that at 4K.what is so difficult for you to understand.
Posted on Reply
#106
EarthDog
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4068509, member: 82332"
1440p why you leveraging that shit 4k they will be equal at 1440p there's a difference that 98% of the pc buying world wont notice or care about because they care more about shoes and cars and cost matters most. Simple.

What they're best served by matters nought.

And quit with the trolling bullshit a 2700x is not just good for rendering you name brand epeen snob.
Get on topic, price cuts are needed, good for all, as is choice.
Go Intel, fight on.
lol...

At 4k a cpu doesnt make nearly as much of a difference as 2560x1440 or 1080p. That said...its still putting a glass ceiling on a GPU. If it hits 60 fps, great. That doesnt mean it's still not holding things back which is not optimal. If you are running 4k you have AT LEAST at 1080ti or 2080/2080ti which the fx chokes on at any res.

Fx was a turd when it was released and is now a dried out cow patty. Sandybridge can still beat it, lol, and we know it lacks in CPU horsepower. :)
Posted on Reply
#107
theoneandonlymrk
cucker tarlson, post: 4068512, member: 173472"
go on.

I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k,got a bunch of insults in response.typical.
of course if fx can't deliver 60 fps in every game it won't do that at 4K.what is so difficult for you to understand.
Take it to pm its off topic non-sense I apologize for calling you names ,I got excited. I'm sorry this topic is not worth the effort in this thread and time though.

You also pick and choose what to reply to so whatever.
Posted on Reply
#108
cucker tarlson
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4068517, member: 82332"
Take it to pm its off topic non-sense I apologize for calling you names ,I got excited. I'm sorry this topic is not worth the effort in this thread and time though.

You also pick and choose what to reply to so whatever.

I never replied to the statement that "98% won't notice the difference at 1440p" cause it's so ridiculous.
first of all,you can never prove what the actual number of people is.you say it's 98%,I say it's 50%,neither of us knows what the number is.Plus it's irrelevant to the point I was making.I'm a high refresh user myself,what I'm writing concerns me.
and second of all making a general assumption that 1440p is the point where the gpu starts to matter almost exclusively is either too general or just plain wrong.I just gave youi an example - running 1440p but not at ultra.I hardly ever run ultra preset if I can't hit my desired framerate.

no offence taken about "brand snob",I could call you the same thing since all you ever do is defend amd with wild,unsubstantiated claims.

every page of every cpu review is constructed in such a way that a cpu is tested using just about the heaviest scenario.that concerns gaming as much as every other ulitity/productivity test.a home/gaming user like me will run into cpu bottlenecks in gaming much,much more often thatn they will in any other part of a full review.
Posted on Reply
#109
lexluthermiester
Ok, I'm back in for this one...
cucker tarlson, post: 4068512, member: 173472"
I asked for a proof for your wild claim fx will run 4k as well as 9900k
Try Youtube

This one shows 4k comparisons. Clearly the bottleneck is the GPU.

In this one, the tests are run at 1080p, both the 2700k and the FX are still not bottlenecking very much.

And another here.

His claim was not that bold. FX CPU's are viable for gaming at 4k if you have the GPU to push that res and you tweak your game settings a bit.
Posted on Reply
#110
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068526, member: 134537"
Ok, I'm back in for this one...

Try Youtube

This one shows 4k comparisons. Clearly the bottleneck is the GPU.

In this one, the tests are run at 1080p, both the 2700k and the FX are still not bottlenecking very much.

And another here.

His claim was not that bold. FX CPU's are viable for gaming at 4k if you have the GPU to push that res and you tweak your game settings a bit.
before I waste my time watching this,how many of those are actually comparing 9900k to fx?

just the first one says "980ti". please,you've embarassed yourself enough.

the third one is not even a comparison,it's just running in-game benchmarks on fx.and it says 39 min. fps in rotr.
Posted on Reply
#111
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068528, member: 173472"
before I waste my time watching this,how many of those are actually comparing 9900k to fx?
None, I was responding to your discussion with @theoneandonlymrk about the FX statement. You asked him for supporting information. I delivered.
cucker tarlson, post: 4068528, member: 173472"
just the first one says "980ti".
The context was gaming on FX@4k.
cucker tarlson, post: 4068528, member: 173472"
please,you've embarrassed yourself enough.
Yeah, that is what happened...
Posted on Reply
#112
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068532, member: 134537"
None, I was responding to your discussion with @theoneandonlymrk about the FX statement. You asked him for supporting information. I delivered.

The context was gaming on FX@4k.

Yeah, that is what happened...
this is too hard for me.it's like I'm talking to a child.you delivered nothing that was really relevant.

the context was not "4k gaming on fx",of course not.

it was 9900k vs fx at 4K,and of course using a 980Ti is a scenario that one may throw away instantly,980Ti is like 1660Ti now.
Posted on Reply
#113
Manu_PT
Vayra86, post: 4068379, member: 152404"
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?


Thats an awful CPU right there. My 9700k does 4,9ghz at 1,24v ez pz.

We could say I have a golden sample but then we go on ocnet to the 9700k owners lounge and realize most are doing 5ghz with 1,3 to 1,35.

Talking about non sense, you the one spreading it on this forum everyday. You even said you added me to the ignore list but there you are.

9700k is easy to cool, lack of HT makes it easy to reach clock speeds with less voltage. Deal with it.
Posted on Reply
#114
lexluthermiester
cucker tarlson, post: 4068533, member: 173472"
this is too hard for me.it's like I'm talking to a child.you delivered nothing that was really relevant.
I'm not the one hurling insults. :rolleyes: Just sad... :(
Posted on Reply
#115
cucker tarlson
Manu_PT, post: 4068534, member: 168799"
We could say I have a golden sample but then we go on ocnet to the 9700k owners lounge and realize most are doing 5ghz with 1,3 to 1,35.
link
Posted on Reply
#117
cucker tarlson
lexluthermiester, post: 4068540, member: 134537"
intel/comments/9q2g28
Jesus Christ the link to the ocn owners lounge,not a random hwmonitor reading.
you understand why me and Vayra are find it hard now?
this is not even 4.9ghz.
I'm done here.
Posted on Reply
#120
Tatty_One
Senior Moder@tor
It may come as a surprise to some but this is not a private chatroom, most of the last page has nothing to do with the topic so a couple of you either need to take it to PM's, walk away or start your own thread, any more of this tooing and froing and my patience will evaporate...………. thank you.
Posted on Reply
#121
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4068544, member: 173472"
okay,I skimmed quickly,I can see nothing that would prove what you said,that is most 9700ks do 4.9 at 1.2-1.26v
quite the contrary,most need 1.3v or more.
Its common knowledge that link just confirmed it. The vast majority needs 1.3V and up and thats no different than your average 8700K.

Yawn

EDIT point taken tatty
Posted on Reply
#122
ZoneDymo
cucker tarlson, post: 4068541, member: 173472"
Jesus Christ the link to the ocn owners lounge,not a random hwmonitor reading.
you understand why me and Vayra are find it hard now?
this is not even 4.9ghz.
I'm done here.
Good because the back and forth childish banter going on in this thread of which you are a part is just embarrassing.
One person suggested pm/dm's but nope, keep going on right here with all the whining, jeez.
Posted on Reply
#123
theoneandonlymrk
cucker tarlson, post: 4068525, member: 173472"
I never replied to the statement that "98% won't notice the difference at 1440p" cause it's so ridiculous.
first of all,you can never prove what the actual number of people is.you say it's 98%,I say it's 50%,neither of us knows what the number is.Plus it's irrelevant to the point I was making.I'm a high refresh user myself,what I'm writing concerns me.
and second of all making a general assumption that 1440p is the point where the gpu starts to matter almost exclusively is either too general or just plain wrong.I just gave youi an example - running 1440p but not at ultra.I hardly ever run ultra preset if I can't hit my desired framerate.

no offence taken about "brand snob",I could call you the same thing since all you ever do is defend amd with wild,unsubstantiated claims.

every page of every cpu review is constructed in such a way that a cpu is tested using just about the heaviest scenario.that concerns gaming as much as every other ulitity/productivity test.a home/gaming user like me will run into cpu bottlenecks in gaming much,much more often thatn they will in any other part of a full review.
What are you on about, someone offers you pm.

I get a page of bullshit off topic , this is an Intel topic you started mentioning amd, I replied to your bullshit


"R2700X is only good for rendering" comment for a somehow prooveable 90% of people implied by him and you.

Your misleading with bullshit while trolling via Google, Im on a phone and would rather be ON topic.

Your a high Hz squed perspective gamer \2% and you think you represent the people, divisional delusional bs.
Posted on Reply
#124
Vayra86
theoneandonlymrk, post: 4068558, member: 82332"
What are you on about, someone offers you pm.

I get a page of bullshit off topic , this is an Intel topic you started mentioning amd, I replied to your bullshit


"R2700X is only good for rendering" comment for a somehow prooveable 90% of people implied by him and you.

Your misleading with bullshit while trolling via Google, Im on a phone and would rather be ON topic.

Your a high Hz squed perspective gamer \2% and you think you represent the people, divisional delusional bs.
Well, keep in mind we are talking about top end MSDT, so that already covers the top 5-10% of the marlet only, so in that sense the 2% high refresh market share is a relative 30-40% share among high end CPUs. Its wrong to apply average / casualuse cases as blanket statement no matter what.

To get on topic; that is the exact reason Intel can keep hold of that PCMR gaming fortress, and its why Ryzen 3 is hype material; a major clock bump is in the cards.

Even AMD does not deny that they need to up the gaming perf!
Posted on Reply
#125
R-T-B
ZoneDymo, post: 4068051, member: 66089"
Opinions, "Embattled" is a perfectly fine unbiased word to describe the trend that is forming that everyone and their mother is predicting.
It's really not ok in proper journalism to project what you personally anticipate either.

But I am beating a dead horse.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment