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

[moonbogg]

So you look for good deals, and don't buy anywhere near MSRP anyway...

I don't like how old 14nm is. I feel like it's just so old and no longer fresh and good. 14nm is like stale, day old bread now.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't like how old 14nm is. I feel like it's just so old and no longer fresh and good. 14nm is like stale, day old bread now.

If it's faster, and not priced ridiculously, no one will care.

Except you.

 

[Topweasel]

So you look for good deals, and don't buy anywhere near MSRP anyway...

Outside maybe the 8086k I don't any top 115x "halo" has had an MSRP near let alone over $400.

While you can find deals though they are usually combo deals. Intel CPU's generally stay around MSRP even after they are replaced.

 

[Topweasel]

Intel: Are we the baddies?

Man I love that skit.

 

[LTC8K6]

Outside maybe the 8086k I don't any top 115x "halo" has had an MSRP near let alone over $400.

While you can find deals though they are usually combo deals. Intel CPU's generally stay around MSRP even after they are replaced.

Well, Intel has no listed RCP for the 8086K, but it's down to $379 at Micro Center.

 

[Topweasel]

Well, Intel has no listed RCP for the 8086K, but it's down to $379 at Micro Center.

The 8086 came off as a LE gimmick so I didn't look at the price, that's why I said maybe. I think their had been some gen to gen creep in price but most of the top Consumer Halo's have been $330-$340.

 

[swilli89]

If it's faster, and not priced ridiculously, no one will care.

Except you.

Seeing rumors of pricing at basically $500 for the part. Hard to justify when Amazon just had a multiple-day sale for the Ryzen 2700 for $220.

I pieced together a very solid Motherboard, 16gb 3000mhz RAM, and AMD's fastest 8c/16t processor for less than Intel's upcoming 8c/16t (based on rumored pricing).

Intel's crazy hyper threading segmentation and pricing are so off-putting for consumers like me.

 

[jpiniero]

Seeing rumors of pricing at basically $500 for the part. Hard to justify when Amazon just had a multiple-day sale for the Ryzen 2700 for $220.

Because it's faster in games, duh.

 

[LTC8K6]

Seeing rumors of pricing at basically $500 for the part. Hard to justify when Amazon just had a multiple-day sale for the Ryzen 2700 for $220.

I pieced together a very solid Motherboard, 16gb 3000mhz RAM, and AMD's fastest 8c/16t processor for less than Intel's upcoming 8c/16t (based on rumored pricing).

Intel's crazy hyper threading segmentation and pricing are so off-putting for consumers like me.

AMD still seems to have "budget" written on it's back.

Price rumors for the 9900K have varied widely.

There's no telling yet what price Intel will set, and more importantly, what price sellers will actually charge.

Intel may yet react to AMD's pressure. We just don't know yet.

I hope that Intel has at least learned the lesson of supply at launch and stockpiled enough chips.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I hope that Intel has at least learned the lesson of supply at launch and stockpiled enough chips.

Not sure they have any choice one way or the other, given the 14nm shortages elsewhere in their lineup. If they have to choose between Xeons and 9900ks on limited wafer supply, which do you think they chose?

We will see if they do better than last year.

Otherwise, I suspect that the high initial pricing we see for the 9900k is related to supply shortages, not due to any perception of the 9900k as being a "premium" product. MSRP is probably a good bit lower than $500+

 

[Zucker2k]

The Ryzen 1800x was a $499 product at launch. This chip will run circles around the 1800x. Having said that, I'd love to see this chip come in at $399.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The Ryzen 1800x was a $499 product at launch. This chip will run circles around the 1800x. Having said that, I'd love to see this chip come in at $399.

Forgetting our history, eh? The 1800x sported that price against Intel HEDT chips that cost twice as much and failed to perform much better. The 2700x was cheaper at launch despite being faster than the 1800x. Oh how the market has changed.

 

[RichUK]

Assuming core count remains the same on Zen 2 (do we really need more than 8/16 on mainstream?), I can see the 9900k being the top non-HEDT processor for at least the next 12 months.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't like how old 14nm is. I feel like it's just so old and no longer fresh and good. 14nm is like stale, day old bread now.

Intel does a pretty good job of refining their process and they've squeezed a lot out of it. If you were to believe their own slides, even if 10 nm had gone as planned, the latest 14 nm was still slated to have better performance. The 10 nm chips wouldn't be as good until 10+ was rolled out and 14 nm was retired.

 

[Mopetar]

Assuming core count remains the same on Zen 2 (do we really need more than 8/16 on mainstream?), I can see the 9900k being the top non-HEDT processor for at least the next 12 months.

I could see AMD releasing a chip that pushes beyond it just so they can say they've taken the performance crown. Between the new process and architecture improvements (which should be a bit higher than usual since Zen is new and probably has some low hanging fruit in terms of performance boosts) I think they'll be able to give Intel a run for their money.

 

[Zucker2k]

Forgetting our history, eh? The 1800x sported that price against Intel HEDT chips that cost twice as much and failed to perform much better. The 2700x was cheaper at launch despite being faster than the 1800x. Oh how the market has changed.

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.

 

[Topweasel]

AMD still seems to have "budget" written on it's back.

Price rumors for the 9900K have varied widely.

There's no telling yet what price Intel will set, and more importantly, what price sellers will actually charge.

Intel may yet react to AMD's pressure. We just don't know yet.

I hope that Intel has at least learned the lesson of supply at launch and stockpiled enough chips.

I don't know AMD came out with a competitive product that hit on a few things that Intel was sorely missing in the consumer market. I am not silly enough to assume that it forced Intel's hands in any way. But last year a 1700x was a good by, not a good value chip, just a plainly a chip that was so close in some area's and so much better in others that honestly I personally felt bad for people paying the same amount for 7700k no matter what people say about gaming.

The script has been flipped this year the 8700k is a great product at a really good price. It's not perfect. It could be better in MT. Buts super fast in ST and closes a lot in on MT compared to the 1700x and 1800x. While I wouldn't get either the 8600k or 8086k, the 8700k a really good CPU at a good price and AMD's prices being competitive with that. Not cheap, not value, just a good CPU at a good price against the competitor. In theory. AMD should have to lower it's price against the 9k series. Zen accomplished what it needed to Zen+ is basically a way to tread water for a year. But a 9700k and 9900k in theory are just much better chips. I think it's silly to turn the HT off on the 9700k but even without it, its a better chip than the 2700x. But they aren't even having to do that if the pricing looks like it is going to be. Intel raising the baseline pricing for highend consumer 115x doesn't mean AMD is "budget" it means Intel is driving up pricing. That said AMD can't drive up margins on Ryzen this year because Zen+ was never made to push their foothold farther, just keep them from losing out as much while they waited for Zen 2 to be ready for prime time.

Also not a big fan of the nomenclature anyways. A.) A $200 + CPU isn't budget. B.) AMD also has a $1500 Prosumer chip.

AMD just comes off budget if you are looking at 9900k and decide it's only competitor is the 2700x and at half the price it's a "budget cpu". It's the same as looking at a 2400g and deciding it's competitor is the G5600 and there for Intel is a budget solution. The days of the near uniform selections between the too companies are gone. The 2700x could be seen as a 9900k competitor but at that price, a 7820 or 2920X become really close to competitive for different reasons even with the platform costs as you climb to that price.

 

[Topweasel]

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.

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.

 

[happy medium]

looks to me the 2700 will be competing with the 9600k when games are concerned.
How much is a 9600k going to cost, $250?

Which is faster a i5 8400 or 2700 when gaming? I haven't kept up with this.



edit:
it seems an overclocked 2600 is needed to be equal or slightly beat or an i5 8400.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/page8.html
edit: im sure a 9600k will smoke a 2700 after seeing this, mabe even a 9600 non k.

 

[Kenmitch]

looks to me the 2700 will be competing with the 9600k when games are concerned.
How much is a 9600k going to cost, $250?

Which is faster a i5 8400 or 2700 when gaming? I haven't kept up with this.



edit:
it seems an overclocked 2600 is needed to be equal or slightly beat or an i5 8400.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/page8.html
edit: im sure a 9600k will smoke a 2700 after seeing this, mabe even a 9600 non k.

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.

Using the review you posted there really isn't much to hype about the Intel offering over the AMD alternative.

My opinion is Zen 2 is going to wipe the smile off your avatar!

 

[swilli89]

AMD still seems to have "budget" written on it's back.

Price rumors for the 9900K have varied widely.

There's no telling yet what price Intel will set, and more importantly, what price sellers will actually charge.

Intel may yet react to AMD's pressure. We just don't know yet.

I hope that Intel has at least learned the lesson of supply at launch and stockpiled enough chips.

What? Intel hasn't stopped responding since Ryzen was launched.

We had what.. five generations of mainstream quad-cores from Intel for I think it was seven years? Then within a year Intel launches another iteration of Skylake via hexcore mainstream and then the year after we magically have an 8c/16t from Intel. Intel would much rather continue to be charging $999 on its high end socket for 8c but AMD forced them to offer consumers more. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

This is without a doubt purely a counter to AMD's play so I'm not sure what you mean in terms of Intel reacting. We DO know exactly how they reacted.

AMD may have been budget before when the gaming experiences were 30-40% different. Now that fps gap is like 10-15%. Sure people that take the hobbyism and benchmark racing to the extreme, a la 2080 Ti buyers will be discerning.

For other people that just use hardware to actually game on, a processor that is 100% more expensive for 10% more performance, the choice is probably an easy one to make. If Ferrari marketed a 500bhp car that costs $100,000 and a 550bhp car that cost $200,000, you'd expect people to scoff at the latter's value proposition. If you put two beige boxes in front of me and one was hitting 120 FPS and the other was hitting 132 FPS I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference.

 

[swilli89]

looks to me the 2700 will be competing with the 9600k when games are concerned.
How much is a 9600k going to cost, $250?

Which is faster a i5 8400 or 2700 when gaming? I haven't kept up with this.



edit:
it seems an overclocked 2600 is needed to be equal or slightly beat or an i5 8400.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1627-core-i5-8400-vs-ryzen-5-2600/page8.html
edit: im sure a 9600k will smoke a 2700 after seeing this, mabe even a 9600 non k.

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?

 

[LTC8K6]

What? Intel hasn't stopped responding since Ryzen was launched.

We had what.. five generations of mainstream quad-cores from Intel for I think it was seven years? Then within a year Intel launches another iteration of Skylake via hexcore mainstream and then the year after we magically have an 8c/16t from Intel. Intel would much rather continue to be charging $999 on its high end socket for 8c but AMD forced them to offer consumers more. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

This is without a doubt purely a counter to AMD's play so I'm not sure what you mean in terms of Intel reacting. We DO know exactly how they reacted.

AMD may have been budget before when the gaming experiences were 30-40% different. Now that fps gap is like 10-15%. Sure people that take the hobbyism and benchmark racing to the extreme, a la 2080 Ti buyers will be discerning.

For other people that just use hardware to actually game on, a processor that is 100% more expensive for 10% more performance, the choice is probably an easy one to make. If Ferrari marketed a 500bhp car that costs $100,000 and a 550bhp car that cost $200,000, you'd expect people to scoff at the latter's value proposition. If you put two beige boxes in front of me and one was hitting 120 FPS and the other was hitting 132 FPS I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference.

I meant via lowering or holding prices...

 

[epsilon84]

$360 at microcenter. Now what? Come at me!

Wait for a 9900K MC deal then

 

[epsilon84]

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?

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.