Confirmed - i9 9900k will have soldered IHS, no more toothpaste TIM

[frozentundra123456]

But no one games at 720p.

Graphs below pulled from Trusted Reviews https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-2

That's the thing about CPUs now. There's a floor that if you get to, the gaming experiences are identical beyond human perception. Anyone spending hundreds extra for something only software can report back are just buying a luxury good to either brag about or benchmark or just feel warm and fuzzy inside about. Similar to fashion clothes maybe?

If you look at the 1080p results (which you conveniently omitted) the 8700k is clearly ahead, which also means these are very likely gpu limited benchmarks, which tells very little about cpu performance, except that they are both "good enough".

 

[Hans Gruber]

Fair to say this CPU will be $582?

 

[arandomguy]

Intel launches the 9xxx series and AMD will follow a little while later with the 3xxx series. The 9xxx series will end the end compete with the 3xxx series so basing the future of gaming seems silly for now at least.

What's happened is that Intel and AMD have basically staggered (almost perfectly) release schedules. Neither of their mainstream consumer launches really directly compete gen to gen. Due to the Spring and Fall launch split as well as the yearly launches each currently each competes half a gen to half gen.

 

[LTC8K6]

Fair to say this CPU will be $582?

Not if Intel wants to sell any.

Perhaps Amazon thinks that will be a proper sell price?

It's way too high to be realistic, imo.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's happened is that Intel and AMD have basically staggered (almost perfectly) release schedules. Neither of their mainstream consumer launches really directly compete gen to gen. Due to the Spring and Fall launch split as well as the yearly launches each currently each competes half a gen to half gen.

And that is probably intentional cooperation between the two.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The history lesson here is that the 1800x was and is not an HEDT chip. The 2700x had an uphill fight against coffeelake at launch. No way AMD was going to be able to repeat that sort of pricing with the 8700k at $350.

No, that is not the lesson here.

Yeah that 1800x (and this is why there is no 2800x) existed for that price solely because the one product that could touch it was $1000. It came off as a steal and more importantly made sure they sold a crazy ton of 1700 and 1700x's by making them look like an even crazier value. It existed not because AMD was trying to make their base platform an HEDT platform they did it because it told everyone else, hey you don't have to go HEDT to get workstation performance.

That said there is a room for a $500 Ryzen 3800x if it were for example a 16c device that could hit at least 4GHz.

By Jove I think you've got it.

Perhaps Amazon thinks that will be a proper sell price?

Intel is going to set an MSRP. Assuming supplies are as tight as they were a year ago for the 8700k, there will be retailer/etailer markups. I doubt many 9900ks will sell @ MSRP until November or December. If the 14nm shortage is particularly acute, prices may stay elevated for longer.

 

[LTC8K6]

The other problem is that if Intel happens to set a reasonable RCP, the chips will be snatched up so fast that prices will skyrocket anyway, and availability will tank anyway.

 

[PingSpike]

Fair to say this CPU will be $582?

Its possible because of the shortages that Intel is looking to grab some of the cash instead of letting the retailers mark it up. But then they'd probably want to cut prices later on, which they hate doing.

I personally think its more likely that was a gouge/placeholder price on the Amazon listing, not the MSRP.

 

[coercitiv]

If the 14nm shortage is particularly acute, prices may stay elevated for longer.

My last hope in relation to this Intel CPU shortage is that the 9000 series inventory buildup played a major part in what we're seeing with the 8000 series.

 

[DrMrLordX]

My last hope in relation to this Intel CPU shortage is that the 9000 series inventory buildup played a major part in what we're seeing with the 8000 series.

Most of the analysts seem to be saying that the true shortages will be in lower-end 14nm chips - stuff meant for budget boxes and laptops. So maybe 9900k supplies will be spared.

But the 9700k? Hmm.

 

[Kenmitch]

Most of the analysts seem to be saying that the true shortages will be in lower-end 14nm chips - stuff meant for budget boxes and laptops. So maybe 9900k supplies will be spared.

But the 9700k? Hmm.

One thing for sure is it'll be interesting to see what the future holds for both Intel and AMD. It's too early to predict the outcome and the past doesn't really play a role in the current situation of both companies.....Maybe the perfect storm for AMD?

With the delayed node, production shortages, decreasing margins, and increased pressure from AMD the future doesn't look as bright for Intel currently. Intel's going to have to make some wise decisions on what market(s) they want to defend at all costs and live with the outcome whatever it may be. I don't think even Intel has the current resources to fend off AMD on all fronts.

Yoda quote....“The fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side” he might have been on to something.

 

[Topweasel]

Highlighting one single game doesn't really prove your point though. A faster CPU is more useful for keeping minimum fps higher in complex scenes - that is a lot more important that a 10% increase in average fps.

But people game with GPU bottlenecks. This has been the case since the beginning of time.

 

[JoeRambo]

But people game with GPU bottlenecks. This has been the case since the beginning of time.

Games like EU4, Civ series, Endless Space 2, Total War etc, emulation all are running with "virtual" GPU bottlenecks 100% of time. But faster CPU there buys what is most important => time and better gaming experience. Be it saved by faster turn times, ability to run simulation faster, lower game save/load times, whatever.
Not everyone is competitive FPS gamer that needs 240FPS and not everyone is running 4K under harsh GPU bottlenecks. But sure everyone can use a faster CPU. Right now that is 5Ghz 8700K combined with tight timings 3400+ mem. Once 9900K released it will obviously take the crown.

 

[Lovec1990]

Games like EU4, Civ series, Endless Space 2, Total War etc, emulation all are running with "virtual" GPU bottlenecks 100% of time. But faster CPU there buys what is most important => time and better gaming experience. Be it saved by faster turn times, ability to run simulation faster, lower game save/load times, whatever.
Not everyone is competitive FPS gamer that needs 240FPS and not everyone is running 4K under harsh GPU bottlenecks. But sure everyone can use a faster CPU. Right now that is 5Ghz 8700K combined with tight timings 3400+ mem. Once 9900K released it will obviously take the crown.

most likely but only in performance, but 9700K will sell more becouse of better P/P

 

[arandomguy]

Not everyone is competitive FPS gamer that needs 240FPS

Those in this scenario (high refresh gaming in general) are also looking for faster CPU (and memory) performance as well.

It's really the high resolution @60 fps and/or conventional triple AAA graphics gaming segment is that is mostly GPU performance dependent. In these cases not only is arguing the better high end CPU is academic but even mid range ones will have a low real performance difference.

Although there are some outliers. For example Fallout 4 even to achieve 60 fps consistency at 1080p is difficult in the worst case areas especially with mods.

 

[JoeRambo]

Those in this scenario (high refresh gaming in general) are also looking for faster CPU (and memory) performance as well.

It's really the high resolution @60 fps and/or conventional triple AAA graphics gaming segment is that is mostly GPU performance dependent. In these cases not only is arguing the better high end CPU is academic but even mid range ones will have a low real performance difference.

My post was about typical discussion that goes like this:

AMD fans: CPU is irrelevant for 4K, GPU performance dependent gaming, my Bulldozer is still doing fine, just like in AMD marketing videos from 2011.
Intel fans: 480P 666hz that's where the action is for competitive gaming.

Both exaggerations, but both ignore that not everything is about FPS and hz as these opposites would make You think. Plenty of other games can benefit from fast CPU with whatever tier GPU. You can lower graphic settings and resolution, but that will not cut turn times or increase sim speed.

 

[Lovec1990]

Personaly i do not se the practical point of 9900K besides being show off.
Main selling CPU will be 9700K witch will compete with Ryzen 3700X, but 9900K will not be sensible buy becouse of P/P

 

[JoeRambo]

New Personaly i do not se the practical point of 9900K besides being show off.

Hard to say from technical point of view: HT has some value, and 4MB of L3 more is importan (that pretty much means ~40% more "disposable" L3 capacity, since L3 has to contain L2 and L1 of each core).
PP sure, but lets see MSRP and market pricing first, maybe it is 600+ due to shortages, making PP discussions irrelevant.

 

[LTC8K6]

Personaly i do not se the practical point of 9900K besides being show off.
Main selling CPU will be 9700K witch will compete with Ryzen 3700X, but 9900K will not be sensible buy becouse of P/P

I would think the best Intel gaming chip is going to be a 6 core 6 thread chip again. It's going to have most of the performance, for a lot less money.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Personaly i do not se the practical point of 9900K besides being show off.
Main selling CPU will be 9700K witch will compete with Ryzen 3700X, but 9900K will not be sensible buy becouse of P/P

Price/performance is not the be all, end all for every buyer. Lets face it, sometimes people just want the best. Why buy a Lexus or Audi instead of a Camry? Why buy a Rolex instead of a 30.00 Timex? Those items cost thousands of dollars to get the top of the line, but people still buy them. Really in the overall scheme of things, what is 2 or 300 dollars extra for a cpu that will last for many years? It is basically a couple of nights out or an extra car payment. You can call it "showing off" if you wish, but if someone has the resources, it is not my business to judge how they spend their money.

 

[Zucker2k]

I would think the best Intel gaming chip is going to be a 6 core 6 thread chip again. It's going to have most of the performance, for a lot less money.

Your first sentence is not the same as your last sentence. That's a problem.

 

[LTC8K6]

Your first sentence is not the same as your last sentence. That's a problem.

Taken in context, I'm obviously referring to price/performance.

 

[Zucker2k]

Taken in context, I'm obviously referring to price/performance.

Is price/performance that linear? I want to see that graph. Are there different levels of "best"? There are too many adulterations of "best" imho.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is price/performance that linear? I want to see that graph. Are there different levels of "best"? There are too many adulterations of "best" imho.

I have no idea. Maybe ask the person who mentioned it?

 

[arandomguy]

Price/performance for computer components isn't as clear as people make it out to be in my opinion.

Strictly speaking a $300 CPU is 50% more expensive than a $200 CPU but in terms of real purchases it becomes more complicated as most are not purchasing that in a vacuum.

Performance averaging is also misleading. While its typical to take some sort of averaging in discussions it's the specific edge cases that more so impact end user experience. If there is even that one task a user can gain noticeable improvement (even more so if there is a specific base line goal) that is going to be relevant.