Wednesday, May 20th 2020

AMD Repositions Ryzen 9 3900X at $410 Threatening both i9-10900K and i7-10700K

AMD marshaled its retailer ecosystem to cut the pricing of its 12-core/24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X processor down to USD $410. At this price, the 3900X is poised to threaten both the 10-core/20-thread Core i9-10900K and the 8-core/16-thread Core i7-10700K. Although bearing a $489 MSRP, the i9-10900K is seen going for upwards of $510. The i7-10700K, on the other hand, is being priced around the $410 mark. The iGPU-devoid i9-10900KF is expected to be around $20 cheaper, which should put its retail pricing around $480, while the i7-10700KF could go for around $380.

Pricing of both chips are along expected lines, as retail pre-tax prices typically end up 5% above the 1,000-unit tray pricing Intel announces for its processors. The Hardware Unboxed review of the i9-10900K shows it taking a roughly 7% lead in gaming performance over the 3900X (averaged), while falling 12% behind in multi-threaded compute performance. The i7-10700K is expected to be slightly faster than the i9-9900K. Adding value to the AMD chip is the fact that it includes a cooling solution in the retail package, which Intel doesn't, for the i9-10900K/KF and the i7-10700K/KF. A February 2020 report postulated that AMD has significant headroom to cut prices of its 3rd generation Ryzen processors to maintain competitiveness against Intel, until they are relieved by the "Zen 3" based 4th gen Ryzen "Vermeer" processors in September 2020.
Add your own comment

40 Comments on AMD Repositions Ryzen 9 3900X at $410 Threatening both i9-10900K and i7-10700K

#26
kapone32
Nater
Wut? It actually went UP in price. It was $409 at Amazon this morning. Now it's $419. It was under $420 almost all of March at multiple retailers.
Probably selling like hotcakes at $410 it is almost academic.
Posted on Reply
#27
TheLostSwede
Ah, US pricing only though...
Cheapest price where I live is $500 and where I'm currently stuck $539...
Once you add on things like VAT and local margins, it's nowhere near the price you can have one for in the US and I don't even live anywhere really terrible when it comes to the price of these things. I wonder how much the Intel chips will cost locally...
Not that I'm planning on upgrading any time soon, but... :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#28
kapone32
ppn
10700F at $298 so it doesn't, the only cpus we should be looking at are 10400F 10700F and 10900F, everything else is pointless
Too bad you need to buy a MB and cooler as well. Some Intel WIFI 6 adapters are $30 on Amazon. Wait they boost to 4.7 GHZ? Too bad most enthusiasts gamed at 1080P 7 years ago. 1440P and 4K are both GPU bound resolutions. I love how some people are so quick to defend Intel's stagnation and acknowledgment of such by giving us releases like this. There is no reason the 10th Gen would not have worked on Z390 and I bet you some Russian site will get that working together. At the end of the day the choice is yours and if all you do is game then I guess $800 to $900 for 12% to 20% more FPS is worth it.
TheLostSwede
Ah, US pricing only though...
Cheapest price where I live is $500 and where I'm currently stuck $539...
Once you add on things like VAT and local margins, it's nowhere near the price you can have one for in the US and I don't even live anywhere really terrible when it comes to the price of these things. I wonder how much the Intel chips will cost locally...
Not that I'm planning on upgrading any time soon, but... :rolleyes:
They never bothered to tell Canada either it is still $649.99 ($465 US) which is not bad but not $410. Using that price US would be $571.92 Cad which is much less than $649.99.
Posted on Reply
#29
EarthDog
kapone32
Too bad you need to buy a MB and cooler as well. Some Intel WIFI 6 adapters are $30 on Amazon. Wait they boost to 4.7 GHZ? Too bad most enthusiasts gamed at 1080P 7 years ago. 1440P and 4K are both GPU bound resolutions. I love how some people are so quick to defend Intel's stagnation and acknowledgment of such by giving us releases like this. There is no reason the 10th Gen would not have worked on Z390 and I bet you some Russian site will get that working together. At the end of the day the choice is yours and if all you do is game then I guess $800 to $900 for 12% to 20% more FPS is worth it.
I more or less agree, but you should really do the math to find the actual differences... 800-900 is total, versus what, 600-700? So, $200 difference? You seem to be assuming amd users have x470/b450 and upgrading..

That and steam stats tell us an overwhelming majority of users run 1080p or less. ;)
Posted on Reply
#30
Franzen4Real
Prima.Vera
Am I the only one being excited for the upcoming 4900X release?
Definitely not the only one. I was really wanting to upgrade at the 3900X launch but I could never catch them in stock. And when I would, the retailers were pricing gouging over msrp like crazy. Once the 4 series was announced and talked about, I decide to hold until they launch. So here's hoping for better luck at the 4900X launch, I'll probably have to be much more diligent on the browser refresh button this time..
Posted on Reply
#31
Decryptor009
EarthDog
I more or less agree, but you should really do the math to find the actual differences... 800-900 is total, versus what, 600-700? So, $200 difference? You seem to be assuming amd users have x470/b450 and upgrading..

That and steam stats tell us an overwhelming majority of users run 1080p or less. ;)
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey


The resolutions are skewed results because a lot of people will be running DSR / VSR which gives downsampled 4K, i do this too.

So i would have assumed 1920x1080 is still much higher than is shown on that survey.
Posted on Reply
#32
EarthDog
Decryptor009
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey


The resolutions are skewed results because a lot of people will be running DSR / VSR which gives downsampled 4K, i do this too.

So i would have assumed 1920x1080 is still much higher than is shown on that survey.
It reads your hardware and settings, not the game and how you set it though. I dont think that is true.
Posted on Reply
#33
Decryptor009
EarthDog
It reads your hardware and settings, not the game and how you set it though. I dont think that is true.
Both VSR & DSR give upto 4K resolution on 1080P panels in resolution settings, this is not limited to games.
Posted on Reply
#34
EarthDog
Decryptor009
Both VSR & DSR give upto 4K resolution on 1080P panels in resolution settings, this is not limited to games.
kk... I still doubt many do that in the first place, but ok. :)

Point is, most are clearly still at 1080p or lower. :)
Posted on Reply
#35
Bee9
Franzen4Real
Definitely not the only one. I was really wanting to upgrade at the 3900X launch but I could never catch them in stock. And when I would, the retailers were pricing gouging over msrp like crazy. Once the 4 series was announced and talked about, I decide to hold until they launch. So here's hoping for better luck at the 4900X launch, I'll probably have to be much more diligent on the browser refresh button this time..
The 3900X selling like hot cakes and out of stock in many countries. I'm lucky to be in the US and within walking distance to a Micro Center. Got one at $400 couple months ago while everyone was still selling it around $500 mark.
I hope everyone can get the 3900X for cheap. It's an amazing chip for the money.
Posted on Reply
#36
Nater
Arjai
I wish there was a a way to make people actually make sense. Emotion is nice but, not uncontrolled emotion. Facts are Facts, Intel still pulls about 10 to 15% better frame rates on games, avg.
*at 720p

Which I'll never understand why it's even a metric that's measured. Even my 8 year old plays at 1920x1200. Who are these people playing PC games less than 1080? And buying $500 CPU's to do it that's discussed to compare e-peen sizes? :p:D:kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#37
Bee9
Nater
*at 720p

Which I'll never understand why it's even a metric that's measured. Even my 8 year old plays at 1920x1200. Who are these people playing PC games less than 1080? And buying $500 CPU's to do it that's discussed to compare e-peen sizes? :p:D:kookoo:
LOL. My 12 year-old won't even look at 1080p monitor. He wants 1440p or 4K. Kids these days are quite demanding. I think will buy a cheap 8700K runs around $200 used in my place (or 10600K if the pricing is fair) then pair it with a 2070 super and call it a day. Just enough for my kids to play games. They won't touch Adobe craps or do video production anytime soon, so that Intel chip should be enough.
Posted on Reply
#38
ARF
Bee9
LOL. My 12 year-old won't even look at 1080p monitor. He wants 1440p or 4K. Kids these days are quite demanding. I think will buy a cheap 8700K runs around $200 used in my place (or 10600K if the pricing is fair) then pair it with a 2070 super and call it a day. Just enough for my kids to play games. They won't touch Adobe craps or do video production anytime soon, so that Intel chip should be enough.
This is quite normal. New generation kids just know that there is something better than 1080p and want pixel accurate Retina type of display.

How our parents naturally can't work so well with computers, while we work and find things on the computer easily.
Posted on Reply
#39
kapone32
EarthDog
I more or less agree, but you should really do the math to find the actual differences... 800-900 is total, versus what, 600-700? So, $200 difference? You seem to be assuming amd users have x470/b450 and upgrading..

That and steam stats tell us an overwhelming majority of users run 1080p or less. ;)
$200 is if you buy new. Indeed I also would assume that most people looking at the 3900x would have a higher propensity to already have an AM4 board. The other difference is the used market is available to those who buy the 3900X vs any 10th gen part from Intel.

I have 4 computers on my Steam account.

1. My 720P AMD laptop
2. My HTPC that is hooked up to a 1080p tv
3. My daughter's PC that is hooked up to a 27" 1080P monitor
4. My PC that is hooked up to a 4K monitor.


Maybe I am not the typical user but I was 720P and 1080p TN for years. Then I saw a IPS 1440P QNIX on Newegg for $200 US ($225 CAD at the time). Once I got that even 1080P looked blocky and I knew that my Gaming PC would not be hooked up to a 1080P panel any more. My local friends that game are all at a minimum of 1440P. I am not denying that the Intel part is nice for Gaming though but the price of entry is too high for me (especially if you have to buy a new CPU next year that supports PCIe 4.0.
Posted on Reply
#40
las
Decryptor009
Intel CPU's have their merits, but only for niche things which is the base you are covering here.

Security flaws, power hungry node...
Cost for the CPU's vs the competition, it adds up.

And even then the competition out performs for a lower cost.

I never said Intel was dead, that is projection from yourself, i simply stated that AMD never had any threat from this lineup from intel.
AMD has security flaws too, so meh. All of them gets fixed and Intel keeps leading the pack in most workloads, that regular people do.
Intel actually pays people to find vulnerabilties via their Bug Bounty Program, up to $100.000 USB, AMD does not pay a dime. Where do you think people will search for vulnerabilites first? Duh

Most programs and especially games still prefers high clockspeed on less cores compared to lower clockspeed on more cores. This is not going to change anytime soon. Adobe suite. Quicksync support in varios programs, it all comes down to personal usage. I do emulation and AMD is far behind here. Like 50% less perf on average.

You can say that AMD's products are more niche. Home and desktop market consists alot of gamers these days, other people are going laptop instead. Ryzen 4000 might close the gap but 3000 series did not, still around 10-15% behind. 1000/2000 are not even close. That is why every serious gamer and streamer uses an Intel chip clocked at 5+ GHz. When you go full CPU bound in games, which all 144-360 Hz gamers should be for the most part - and look across alot of different games instead of cherrypicking - AMD is not even close overall. Wonky performance. Hit or miss. Same with AMD GPU's.

Consumer desktop market is a niche market in general. Not a whole lot of money here. Enterprise and Mobile is where the money is and I'm glad to see AMD gaining ground on both. Intel still dominates completely tho. I wish AMD would have released 7nm sooner for mobile and called them 3000 series instead of 4000 series.

Ryzen sells well because of price/perf - It's all about value for most people, not about getting the best of the best. It's the CHEAPER RYZEN CPU's that sells especially well for AMD on the desktop market. B450 + R5 3600/3600X is very good value, especially the non-X with OC. Less so, after 10th gen release. For budget gamers, Intel is now a possibility again.

So yeah, AMD is going to feel 10th gen. They have already responded with pricecuts and new SKU's (XT series, for the first time since Ryzen launched). Even i5-10600K beats R9 3950X in gaming. Asrock boards can increase clocks on non-K chips meaning much better perf/value ratio on low to mid-end segment too.

10th gen is targetting AMD where it hurts; Lower and middle end segment. 8th and 9th series really did not - only the top-end chips came with highest clockspeeds and HT back then. 10th gen changes this. Better price/perf across the board and even the lowest SKUs are decent.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment