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

#126
cucker tarlson
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.
I'm "trolling via google" ?
also,you may wanna read the thread if you think I mentioned amd first.the friggin title is "response to ryzen 3000",I wonder what brand that is.

and about that 98%,I already told you,no one knows how much it is,and that includes you.can you agree that high refresh gaming is a thing and it's quite popular or are you gonna deny that too?

Plus I don't know about the rules,but isn't calling my posts "trolling" constantly a form of trolling too? How can you expect me to even respond to your posts coherently if in every one of them you include words like "trolling" ?
Posted on Reply
#127
FameOfTheWolf
I just got a 9700k. I hope they drop the prices so I can return it still and get a better price. Technically I got it a pretty decent price of 375.
Posted on Reply
#128
Shatun_Bear
Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.
Posted on Reply
#129
Manu_PT
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.
Vayra86, post: 4068554, member: 152404"
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
I think you are both trolling, considering 90% of the users on that thread had 5ghz+ overclocks. But I won´t even bother with it anymore, it´s all on the thread, read properly. Have a nice weekend.
Posted on Reply
#130
cucker tarlson
Manu_PT, post: 4068585, member: 168799"
I think you are both trolling, considering 90% of the users on that thread had 5ghz+ overclocks. But I won´t even bother with it anymore, it´s all on the thread, read properly. Have a nice weekend.
oh please don't leave.

on topic though,yes,they all had 5ghz,but hardly anyone needed less that 1.30v plus change.those that did used higher avx offset or non avx load.
Posted on Reply
#131
efikkan
Shatun_Bear, post: 4068581, member: 166032"
Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.
As new products enter the market, the market will adjust.
But older processing nodes or older architectures doesn't necessary make them inferior. If that were the case, Turing and Pascal would be really bad, but they're not.
Posted on Reply
#132
cucker tarlson
Shatun_Bear, post: 4068581, member: 166032"
Inferior products (slower, less efficient and on an old 14nm fab process) should be cheaper than AMD's new 3000 series.
the product will usually sell for whatever ppl are going to pay for it.I've seen many times prices don't fall even if msrp is adjusted.
Posted on Reply
#133
voltage
Just bring 10th Gen already, been waiting for YEARS for it. Come on INTEL, release it already.
Posted on Reply
#134
Shatun_Bear
efikkan, post: 4068616, member: 150226"
As new products enter the market, the market will adjust.
But older processing nodes or older architectures doesn't necessary make them inferior. If that were the case, Turing and Pascal would be really bad, but they're not.
Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.
Posted on Reply
#135
StrayKAT
voltage, post: 4068663, member: 173691"
Just bring 10th Gen already, been waiting for YEARS for it. Come on INTEL, release it already.
I think 10 calls for something more revolutionary across the board..with even more upgrades besides 7nm or PCIE 4.. But they'll line up all of their ducks in a row soon enough.
Posted on Reply
#136
Prima.Vera
15% is shit. Hell, the taxes in EU and/or Asia can go up to 40% (VAT; Import; etc)
Posted on Reply
#137
kapone32
wolf, post: 4068486, member: 38920"
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.
What I am talking about is the innovation race. In consumer electronics it is the number one thing that attracts new users. AMD has been hitting it out of the park with their releases of truly new products. In the mind of the average user these are real; PCI-E 4.0, WIFI 6, 12 and 16 core desktop CPUs, Google Stadia, EPYC, TR4, Navi (which is priced incorrectly according to leaks). In reference to this article Intel is responding (in the short term) with weak attempts. They should have dropped prices months or even years ago. The biggest thing for me is the interface in the CPU package itself for Ryzen2 processors is purportedly running at PCI_E 4.0 which if is true and combined with 70MBs of Cache is some serious throughput.
Posted on Reply
#138
StrayKAT
kapone32, post: 4068752, member: 181865"
What I am talking about is the innovation race. In consumer electronics it is the number one thing that attracts new users. AMD has been hitting it out of the park with their releases of truly new products. In the mind of the average user these are real; PCI-E 4.0, WIFI 6, 12 and 16 core desktop CPUs, Google Stadia, EPYC, TR4, Navi (which is priced incorrectly according to leaks). In reference to this article Intel is responding (in the short term) with weak attempts. They should have dropped prices months or even years ago. The biggest thing for me is the interface in the CPU package itself for Ryzen2 processors is purportedly running at PCI_E 4.0 which if is true and combined with 70MBs of Cache is some serious throughput.
The reason Intel didn't innovate here is because they didn't have to. There was no race at all, and they were going to attract users either way. Hopefully now that AMD is making a push again, it'll be a good thing even for Intel.
Posted on Reply
#139
lexluthermiester
StrayKAT, post: 4068754, member: 174092"
The reason Intel didn't innovate here is because they didn't have to. There was no race at all, and they were going to attract users either way.
That's not exactly true. They need to give existing customers good reasons to upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#140
Countryside
Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15%

Posted on Reply
#141
Tsukiyomi91
IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.
Posted on Reply
#142
efikkan
Shatun_Bear, post: 4068687, member: 166032"
Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.
Faster? That will probably depend on the use case, and you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out. So far AMD have shown performance parity in Cinebench, which is known to be favorable towards Zen(1).
Posted on Reply
#143
GoldenX
Tsukiyomi91, post: 4068782, member: 129086"
IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.
No Intel board offers PCIe 4, so a more valid comparison is of Z390 vs expensive B450 boards.
Posted on Reply
#144
Shatun_Bear
Tsukiyomi91, post: 4068782, member: 129086"
IF (a big one) Intel ever did give their entire mainstream SKUs a price cut, even if it's a 10% for the i9-9900K & it applies everywhere, even to Asian markets, AMD will need to find ways to make their offering more attractive. Problem is, their upcoming X570 board, per quote by MSI's CEO, says the "cheapest" model is 201 Euros (~$230). while the cheapest Z390 board comes in at $100 (ASRock Z390 Pro4), making Intel builds much more feasible, despite the i9 being more expensive than R7 3800X's $400 MSRP.
Again, I think people will be willing to pay a very small premium for X570 as it's more advanced than Intel's latest. It has PCIE4, which can't be found anywhere else, and the whole range is being given the full premium treatment by board partners as if the chipset is a generation up.
Posted on Reply
#145
Blueberries
I'm speculating, but there was probably a "gentleman's agreement" between Intel and AMD to withhold PCIe 4+ chipsets until the second half of this year, and we'll see 4.0 or 5.0 from Intel shortly, and a CPU performance bump along with it.

On the other hand, AMD is the underdog, and it's refreshing to see them challenge Intel again. It took Ryzen 3 iterations to actually "ryze," but we're finally seeing Su's legacy.
Posted on Reply
#146
Shatun_Bear
efikkan, post: 4068789, member: 150226"
Faster? That will probably depend on the use case, and you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out. So far AMD have shown performance parity in Cinebench, which is known to be favorable towards Zen(1).
So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.
Posted on Reply
#147
lexluthermiester
efikkan, post: 4068789, member: 150226"
Faster? That will probably depend on the use case, and you should reserve your judgement until the reviews are out.
This! Seriously. Everyone, the actual numbers are not known yet. Let's reserve conclusions and judgments until we see the actual performance..

Shatun_Bear, post: 4068801, member: 166032"
So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.
Context much?
Posted on Reply
#148
Vayra86
I seriously doubt any prospective buyer is actually looking at what's on offer and even has a second thought about PCIe 4.0 or 3.0. Its one of those things that is compatible anyway - if you worry about this, the last PC you built was something pre- PCIe 2.0. Bandwidth hasn't been an issue for decades.

Shatun_Bear, post: 4068687, member: 166032"
Nvidia GPUs comparative to AMD's is a very different case. Here, AMD's CPU products are faster, draw less power and likely run cooler. I think that makes Intel's aging arch and older process node inferior to what AMD is using.
It is not a relevant metric when comparing products - you use the actual performance it gives and the characteristics it gives that under (power, heat), and in that sense, for 90% of use cases and people, these CPUs are virtually identical. At that point, the primary trigger becomes price - which is why Intel can still have an effect doing what they do now, even if by raw numbers the product 'is inferior' or 'on an inferior node'. The % of users that push a CPU to the limit is actually pretty low. Those who emphasize the need for CPU perf, know what they're looking for, so they dó notice it.

The thing that will really sell Ryzen 3 is the core count gap - its a very noticeable, visible way of telling buyers 'this one is better'. More cores at the same price. And the typical Intel safe haven of single thread dominance (clocks) is now gone too - another important number on the spec sheet.

Heck, its what AMD does with GPU - the problem there is that for gaming, GPUs are stressed constantly and not 'bursty' like CPUs tend to be, so people tend to notice the efficiency gap in a big way (more noise etc.) and load a GPU to cap much more often, which also highlights the performance gap.
Posted on Reply
#149
EarthDog
If only more cores was actually better for most people...

The real deal is similar/better performance at a lower price...core count be damned. :)
Posted on Reply
#150
The Quim Reaper
Shatun_Bear, post: 4068801, member: 166032"
So you agree Intel's comparative CPUs are inferior then? That's good we can move on.
..not for running emulators they're not. Intel is still king in that particular usage scenario....and its looking like that will still be the case after Zen 2 launches.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment