benefit/advantage of Intel F-suffix processors

[mpbrede]

Are there any data that indicates whether there is a benefit to the consumer of acquiring an Intel processor with the F-suffix (ie. no integrated graphics)?

I'm wondering if it lowers power consumption, thermal characteristics, or any other aspect> or are people buying the F-processors merely buying Intel's "scraps" that failed a full validation and paying full price for it?

 

[jpiniero]

OEMs are paying less.

 

[Yotsugi]

None.

 

[PingSpike]

Going by MSRP, there's none. But going by street price...well, they're cheaper than the original non-F skus. Last time I looked the 8400 sold for $220-230 and the 9400F sold for $180.

 

[LTC8K6]

OEMs are paying less.

But having to supply a video card.

 

[jpiniero]

But having to supply a video card.

Would be okay for gaming desktops.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I could get behind the idea of the F-SKU Intel CPUs, if they were all unlocked. After all, if Intel is charging the same price, then they should show purchasers of those SKUs a bone. Of course, it would be an interesting PR move, if the CPUs were labeled FK. i5-9400FK, anyone?

 

[Yotsugi]

i5-9400FK, anyone?

That would annihilate 9600K sales.

 

[Ketchup]

No advantage for us (at least not right now). I think Intel is playing a little pricing game to see if it helps them meet demand - and I suppose that makes sense: You have a bunch of these 10 nm chips that can't cut it with the iGPU enabled, but hey, they do ok if we turn it off! So, let's just disable the iGPU and call it a new processor! It is going to take time to figure out how well this works for them.

 

[NTMBK]

OEMs get availability, since Intel can reuse otherwise failed chips. Given recent shortages that's no small thing.

 

[mv2devnull]

What is the (relative) size of the market?

X customers are ok with iGPU, Y customers demand discrete GPU.
I would assume that Y << X, but of course supplying even small Y with the F-models does help the iGPU-based market.

 

[beginner99]

No advantage for us (at least not right now). I think Intel is playing a little pricing game to see if it helps them meet demand - and I suppose that makes sense: You have a bunch of these 10 nm chips that can't cut it with the iGPU enabled, but hey, they do ok if we turn it off! So, let's just disable the iGPU and call it a new processor! It is going to take time to figure out how well this works for them.

Maybe they are testing the waters due to 10nm issues but for now the F chips are all 14nm based

OEMs get availability, since Intel can reuse otherwise failed chips. Given recent shortages that's no small thing.

And this has nothing to do with yield but with validation. Intel itself said they do not have a production bottleneck but a validation bottleneck. If the iGPU just gets fused off, no need to validate it and hence more throughput in validation and product to sell.

EDIT: for the consumer there is 0 benefit, even if they sell for $30 less, that is so little money, I would rather have a backup igpu just in case when the gpu breaks or you want to switch cards and have a lag time of couple weeks in between.