Question Intel preparing to raise CPU prices by as much as 20%, "due to inflation"

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

According to a recent article in "The Street", Intel is preparing to raise prices on CPU's by as much as 20%, due to ongoing and increasing inflation.

Time to run out and buy that CPU you've had your eye on, in order to avoid a 20% jump in price?

 

[Ranulf]

Eh, good luck with that intel. That just makes the low to mid end the better deal for the next 3-4 years.

 

[Ajay]

A link would be helpful.

 

[Hitman928]

A link would be helpful.

Looks like this is the source:

Intel plans price hikes on broad range of products

Customers told move is a response to cost pressures

asia.nikkei.com

 

[Ajay]

So, 'by as much' meaning mostly single digit increases.

 

[ZGR]

Time to run out and buy that CPU you've had your eye on, in order to avoid a 20% jump in price?

What CPU though? If I was an Alder Lake owner, I'd be waiting for Raptor Lake instead of wanting to upgrade to a 12900k. If I was also on DDR5 Alder Lake, I'd be upgrading the RAM again too since DDR5 is improving at a rapid pace.

Other than that, I don't think there is a reason to buy a desktop CPU from Intel since AM5's longevity will make it a better investment. I hope Intel will make their next gen platform after RL last more than 2 CPU releases. That would definitely make choosing AMD vs Intel a more difficult decision in the future.

I went against my advice since I just built a dead-end AM4 PC with zero upgrade path. The 'budget' motherboard and RAM were so affordable; even cheaper than my 2013 Intel build adjusting for inflation.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I went against my advice since I just built a dead-end AM4 PC with zero upgrade path. The 'budget' motherboard and RAM were so affordable; even cheaper than my 2013 Intel build adjusting for inflation.

Dead end, unless the 59x0 3D is real. Probably a wash for gaming, unless it clocks better. Still, extra threads if you need them for something down the road. But yeah, that 3D you have will game it up for years to come. By then LGA1700 will be old news too.

 

[pakotlar]

What CPU though? If I was an Alder Lake owner, I'd be waiting for Raptor Lake instead of wanting to upgrade to a 12900k. If I was also on DDR5 Alder Lake, I'd be upgrading the RAM again too since DDR5 is improving at a rapid pace.

Other than that, I don't think there is a reason to buy a desktop CPU from Intel since AM5's longevity will make it a better investment. I hope Intel will make their next gen platform after RL last more than 2 CPU releases. That would definitely make choosing AMD vs Intel a more difficult decision in the future.

I went against my advice since I just built a dead-end AM4 PC with zero upgrade path. The 'budget' motherboard and RAM were so affordable; even cheaper than my 2013 Intel build adjusting for inflation.

AM5’s longevity promises are the most exciting aspect of the Zen 4 launch. AMD has a lot of credibility from how long the supported AM4. I can believe that if I invest in the AM5 ecosystem now, I may have an upgrade path to the CPU I actually want (some 32 core Zen 4 or 5 with vcache). With Intel, I have no such faith. Ignoring Raptor Lake, which is the last upgrade for LGA 1700, I can’t see myself buying Meteor Lake S (should that exist) or Arrow Lake, unless they’re so much better than Zen 4/5 that I don’t mind the artificial 2 year upgrade window limit. I really hope Intel addresses this, and builds enough power headroom on their next socket to support a longer upgrade path.

On topic, inflation sucks.

 

[Ranulf]

AMD has a lot of credibility from how long the supported AM4.

Heh, tell that to those of us they lied to for 3+ years about first gen mobo support only to backtrack when competition showed up. That credibility they have is weak tea and is very much in doubt.

 

[jpiniero]

That Raptor/Alder split makes even more sense. Shrinkflation, anyone?

 

[pakotlar]

Heh, tell that to those of us they lied to for 3+ years about first gen mobo support only to backtrack when competition showed up. That credibility they have is weak tea and is very much in doubt.

Ah interesting! I thought folks were happy about AM4 support, and viewed Ryzen 3 support in a good light despite it being the clear result of backlash (IIRC they first announced that they would not add Zen 3 support). Do you think your opinion is the major one?

 

[HurleyBird]

Heh, tell that to those of us they lied to for 3+ years about first gen mobo support only to backtrack when competition showed up. That credibility they have is weak tea and is very much in doubt.

Zen 3 hasn't been out for a full two years yet, never mind 3+. And in any case, they didn't lie; the stated reason that there was not room on most BIOS ROMs was accurate. Making room by removing Zen 1 support was a pretty extreme workaround, and for a person upgrading from Zen 1 to Zen 3, a somewhat awkward process.

Now, do I wish that AMD had mandated motherboard manufacturers to use larger BIOS ROMs? Absolutely. And I hope they have better foresight with AM5. If we somehow find ourselves repeating history when Zen 6 arrives, I'll be very disappointed in AMD.

 

[jpiniero]

Zen 3 hasn't been out for a full two years yet, never mind 3+. And in any case, they didn't lie; the stated reason that there was not room on most BIOS ROMs was accurate. Making room by removing Zen 1 support was a pretty extreme workaround, and for a person upgrading from Zen 1 to Zen 3, a somewhat awkward process.

IMO it had nothing to do with that. It's more about keeping the board makers happy so they can push new boards and to reduce support costs. After all, why add additional processor support to a board that's long out of production?

I think it's unlikely Intel will change policy on this unless ***OEMs*** ask for it, and that's very unlikely.

 

[Ranulf]

Zen 3 hasn't been out for a full two years yet, never mind 3+. And in any case, they didn't lie; the stated reason that there was not room on most BIOS ROMs was accurate. Making room by removing Zen 1 support was a pretty extreme workaround, and for a person upgrading from Zen 1 to Zen 3, a somewhat awkward process.

Now, do I wish that AMD had mandated motherboard manufacturers to use larger BIOS ROMs? Absolutely. And I hope they have better foresight with AM5. If we somehow find ourselves repeating history when Zen 6 arrives, I'll be very disappointed in AMD.

They said no support for it in 2019 if not earlier. I believe there was even debate that they would drop x470/b450 support. There are b550 boards that support only zen2/3 cpus.

Ah interesting! I thought folks were happy about AM4 support, and viewed Ryzen 3 support in a good light despite it being the clear result of backlash (IIRC they first announced that they would not add Zen 3 support). Do you think your opinion is the major one?

Dunno. If you held out and didn't upgrade at all, you're probably happy. I was over the whole deal until they waited 1.5 years to release the rest of 5000 series and add in 300 mobo support.

 

[Hotrod2go]

They said no support for it in 2019 if not earlier. I believe there was even debate that they would drop x470/b450 support. There are b550 boards that support only zen2/3 cpus.



Dunno. If you held out and didn't upgrade at all, you're probably happy. I was over the whole deal until they waited 1.5 years to release the rest of 5000 series and add in 300 mobo support.

Like you Ranulf, I tend to agree, had an experience with a B450 board & upgrading bios to support 5000 series. Was a nightmare when booting after upgraded bios only to find locked out of entering the bios to change anything with a Zen+ cpu on it! Lucky for me the board could downgrade the bios though... saved my ass! Won't forget that experience any time soon.

 

[DrMrLordX]

AM4 broad compatibility is kind of hit-or-miss. Not everyone had it good. But there were cases where 300-series boards supported Zen3 and Zen3D which is kind of awesome. Take that for what it's worth.

That aside

Intel raising prices could be catastrophic for them. Client is arguably their strongest market right now. Curtailing sales by raising prices only makes sense if they expect sales to drop off anyway. Price increases may still exacerbate that effect.

 

[moinmoin]

Intel raising prices could be catastrophic for them. Client is arguably their strongest market right now. Curtailing sales by raising prices only makes sense if they expect sales to drop off anyway. Price increases may still exacerbate that effect.

Yeah, it will be interesting how Intel balances prices from here on out. Realistically Intel would want to rise prices only for parts where they know that demand is higher than supply. Getting in danger of having to stock unsalable products due to price hikes would be ludicrous.

 

[eek2121]

Heh, tell that to those of us they lied to for 3+ years about first gen mobo support only to backtrack when competition showed up. That credibility they have is weak tea and is very much in doubt.

A lot of people overlooked a claim that AMD was rewriting AGESA to make it universal. A claim I absolutely believe was true. The timing works out. The first AGESA versions would have been written with a limited budget and few developers. In addition, the architecture was brand new. I would even be willing to bet it was ported from previous architectures to save time/money. As new chips came out, it was expanded to support them, at the expense of size. Later on, with a much bigger budget and far more development resources, AMD was able to rewrite it from scratch, which allowed AMD to make smarter design decisions, thus saving space.

This is speculation, of course. However, if you dig through comments, posts, and tweets, some direct from OEMs/ODMs, you will find that the narrative seems to support this.

I will disagree AMD did this to sell new boards. There are other ways to do that.

 

[KompuKare]

There's also the possibility that motherboard manufacturers lobbied not have support for older boards, but that AMD took all the blame for it. After all, Intel's lack of socket longevity is based on at least two factors 1) keep old Intel nodes busy (Atom had a similar reason) and, 2) keep motherboard manufacturers happy selling more boards.

 

[TheELF]

TSMC already increased prices by 10% last year and is going for another 6% next year.
Increasing prices are increasingly increasing for everybody.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-to-hike-chip-prices-in-2023

The 20% increase is going to be for extremely old/niche products, same as TSMC did:

while prices of older N16 and thicker nodes grew 20%.

Prices for main stream CPUs should be within a couple of bucks difference.

 

[aigomorla]

Bah.... im looking at next gen HEDT.
Price Hikes are probably the last thing im worried about.
Its more on HEDT availability if at all any.

 

[maddie]

According to Digitimes, through Wccftech, we have this.

DigiTimes recently reported that Intel is suffering from an oversupply problem with its more prominent processors and wants to limit the supply soon. The company has revealed strategies to increase the price of CPUs shortly to force computer vendors to purchase larger quantities immediately. The power play by the company seems relatively aggressive in blatantly stating, "You better purchase our CPUs while you can buy at the current price because this is your last chance." While not a new business strategy, the effect of Intel pressuring vendors will reduce sales several months later.

If true, a high risk gamble. This could lead to opposite results.

 

[scineram]

Here comes the $349 7600X. Get on the Copium train while you can.

 

[maddie]

All the companies addicted to high margins and I write addicted, because, even if high margins are desired, you should not become addicted to it for your survival, are seeing their "come to Jesus" moment approaching. We will be seeing even more desperate attempts to resist the approaching reality of operating on less revenue.

Who is lean, flexible & agile enough to thrive.


Edit: Down vote? Ha, I wear with pride.

 

[coercitiv]

If true, a high risk gamble. This could lead to opposite results.

This reminds me of a gamification mechanic that attempts to disguise a penalty as a reward: the user receives a bonus for doing certain actions on top of their default behavior, but the gain resulted by default behavior is lowered gradually. The end result is the user needs to work more for the same gains.

(If true) Intel's strategy seems similar, attempting to present a future price increase as a current price reduction. Seems like a bad idea until seen from a customer PoV:

CPU X7 1200 (48 cores, 192 threads) - $699 ($749 tomorrow)

Then again a business is not as impulsive as a retail customer, they know the risks involved with the scale of their operation. Could definitely lead to opposite results, especially if they smell weakness on Intel's part.