Possible Intel 12th Gen Core Pricing Leaked, i9-12900K Costs 741€

[Bomby569]

That sounds like Intel during the FX era from mostly 2012 to 2016.

It's not like AMD didn't increase their prices since they got the upper hand, 50$ if i'm not mistaken. The 1400F was way cheaper then the 3600 for example.

 

[AusWolf]

Idk I've seen A LOT of people complain they have all the parts for their new PC but no GPU. I don't think people are not buying them because they don't have a gpu.

I think people are not buying them because 1. They're still expensive, 2. Most people don't even need 8 cores, let alone 12 or 16.

If they can make my 5900X look like shit for half the price I will buy one with a high end board.

I don't think they will. No performance uplift between single generations is big enough to warrant an upgrade. Ever.

 

[Vayra86]

No performance uplift between single generations is big enough to warrant an upgrade. Ever.

Sandy Bridge says hi there

Or AMD's pre-Ryzen versus its first Ryzen

 

[AusWolf]

Sandy Bridge says hi there

Or AMD's pre-Ryzen versus its first Ryzen

Because it took AMD a million years to develop Zen after their flop with Bulldozer/Piledriver.

Sandy was good, I'll give you that. Not that Westmere/Nehalem was any bad...

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Because it took AMD a million years to develop Zen after their flop with Bulldozer/Piledriver.

Sandy was good, I'll give you that. Not that Westmere/Nehalem was any bad...

And, very likely, that's why Intel was charging the same or roughly the same, if not more for 4/8 from 2012 to 2016.

 

[AusWolf]

And, very likely, that's why Intel was charging the same or roughly the same, if not more for 4/8 from 2012 to 2016.

Yes. But on the other hand, they gave you no reason to upgrade, unless you were coming from the Core 2 Duo/Quad era or before. If you had a 2600 or 2700(K), you were pretty much sorted for a good 6-8 years.

 

[Chrispy_]

Yes. But on the other hand, they gave you no reason to upgrade, unless you were coming from the Core 2 Duo/Quad era or before. If you had a 2600 or 2700(K), you were pretty much sorted for a good 6-8 years.

My primary rig at work is still a i7-2600K on a 120GB Intel X25-m SATA2 drive. It runs Chrome, PuTTY, RDP, Powershell, and Outlook like a champ.
I could grab one of the Ryzen9/64GB/3060/NVMe builds off the ready-to-deploy rack at any point but it won't do anything I need faster than the 2600K.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes. But on the other hand, they gave you no reason to upgrade, unless you were coming from the Core 2 Duo/Quad era or before. If you had a 2600 or 2700(K), you were pretty much sorted for a good 6-8 years.

This is what I've often said in the eternal Intel Quadcore discussions. Yes, they had only quads for ages. But did the market look for anything more? If you really did, there were Extreme versions of the chip. Apparently nobody felt compelled to go that far for two extra threads or four with HT included. And rightly so: the use cases for it were rare, especially for mainstream (desktop) usage.

At the same time, the highly performant single thread of Intel chips was exactly what we wanted to run our stuff well. It was in fact 'the stuff' that lacked threading. Not the CPUs. And later in time, AMD's failed Bulldozer/Piledriver arch actually solidified that statement by running newer software quite well, because it could utilize the threads, finally, nearly 10 years after the CPUs got released.

It goes to show how little you gain by pushing past mainstream performance - you're going to throw a lot of hardware at problems that can't use it well.

 

[mechtech]

My primary rig at work is still a i7-2600K on a 120GB Intel X25-m SATA2 drive. It runs Chrome, PuTTY, RDP, Powershell, and Outlook like a champ.
I could grab one of the Ryzen9/64GB/3060/NVMe builds off the ready-to-deploy rack at any point but it won't do anything I need faster than the 2600K.

yep

My mom and brother and nephew are all using old hand-me-down (2009 era) AMD 955BE rigs with SSDs, with no issues, basically websurfers, office, email, photos, etc. I guess when W11 comes along with TPM, that might be the end of the road for those PCs?

 

[AusWolf]

yep

My mom and brother and nephew are all using old hand-me-down (2009 era) AMD 955BE rigs with SSDs, with no issues, basically websurfers, office, email, photos, etc. I guess when W11 comes along with TPM, that might be the end of the road for those PCs?

I don't think so. If they're happy with windows 10, there's no reason they shouldn't continue using it at least as long as Microsoft keeps updating it.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Sandy Bridge says hi there

Or AMD's pre-Ryzen versus its first Ryzen

When Ryzen first came out I still would've bought an Intel if I was looking for an upgrade. Ryzen was a nice step for AMD but they were still behind.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

This is what I've often said in the eternal Intel Quadcore discussions. Yes, they had only quads for ages. But did the market look for anything more? If you really did, there were Extreme versions of the chip. Apparently nobody felt compelled to go that far for two extra threads or four with HT included. And rightly so: the use cases for it were rare, especially for mainstream (desktop) usage.

At the same time, the highly performant single thread of Intel chips was exactly what we wanted to run our stuff well. It was in fact 'the stuff' that lacked threading. Not the CPUs. And later in time, AMD's failed Bulldozer/Piledriver arch actually solidified that statement by running newer software quite well, because it could utilize the threads, finally, nearly 10 years after the CPUs got released.

It goes to show how little you gain by pushing past mainstream performance - you're going to throw a lot of hardware at problems that can't use it well.

People always want to blame intel for the quad core menace while conveniently ignoring that their 6 core HDET chips were usually slower then quad cores at nearly every game, and AMD's "8 core" FX was getting pounded by a core i3. It really took 3-4 years into a generation of consoles that had 8 core CPUs for 6 core desktop chips to show an advantage, and even today quad cores can maintain 60 FPS in modern games at 1080p.

 

[Tom Sunday]

It really does not matter what it costs. Enthusiasts and others have been standing in line for the past year from midnight on at "Best Buy" to gladly pay for a GPU almost twice it's MSRP. The 12th generation Intel CPU is a very big deal and with offering DDR5, PCIe 5.0, 5.3 GHz, etc. A premium MB will probably breach $1,500. New pricing indeed will be hard to digest but the ready-cash will nevertheless appear like magic. I talked with a "Best Buy" employee (his name plate said Jeff) at their new Sony TV display the other day and he noted: "You have to wonder who these people are that are standing outside in line for a few available GPU's. They rush into our store in ragged clothing, smelly, unshaven, worn down rubber sandals, plenty of attitude and most certainly do not look like having this kind of spendable income available (or should have) and for something so totally unessential. They are most certainly not my coveted Sony customer." I personally was not sure if this was a good attitude to portray for a store employee? But at the same time Jeff did added to our conversation that no one was staying in line for a job at Best Buy, not even for a purported $2 over minimum wage, and that they have been running short with help for over 8-months now. Signs of the times.

 

[GhostRyder]

I mean even though I want better prices its all relative to how they perform. If its better than top end AMD but a decent enough margin in the real world, then it will justify its price at least to itself.

I am interested to see these with this new design, sounds pretty cool honestly.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

Ya doesn't matter to me what they launch at. I've been buying my equipment several generations used when the prices get down to what I consider to be reasonable.

 

[Tom Sunday]

I can imagine there's at least a few people in my boat who are looking for a new CPU for an upgrade rather than a brand new system build.

Yes there will be people out there seeking to upgrade their CPU. I myself have been toying with the idea in upgrading to a Intel i9-10900K once the pricing further drops. But on the other side there will also be many new system builders once the new Z690 MB's and the Core i9-12900K will arrive just around the corner. New tech galore. For once now many of us will have all of the cards on the table when comparing notes with what AMD in turn has to offer. The downside including myself is of course the continuing non-availability at MSRP for any of the 3000 series GPU's and which makes building an all new system very much incomplete. Even perhaps for some enthusiasts to hold off further with their ($4000+) new build including a new 32/34 inch high-refresh 4K monitor and until premium GPU's can readily be picked-up at Best Buys. The next 6-months will however be very interesting on the 'tech-channels' as literally thousands of avid revelers will have different and heated opinions on how the new desktop ship should be sailing. I personally wonder what the Intel stock will look like in their 4th quarter report in early 2022. Food for thought!