Speculation: AMD's response to Intel's 8-core i9-9900K

[LTC8K6]

OK so what are we arguing about again? I'm lost now.

We're still trying to dictate prices to Intel...
Even though we don't have to buy anything at all from Intel anymore...

 

[epsilon84]

Agreed, however my post was written as a remark to those who say 1800X == 9900K in terms of proposal to consumers (relative to their respective timeline), which it was not.


Agreed again, in fact this reasoning was exactly what made me say the 9900K is likely going to be eclipsed by Intel themselves in 2019.

I agree that its hard to compare the 1800X directly to the 9900K because the market situation isn't the same.

At the time all Intel had was the 7700K so the 1800X crushed it in MT performance. Of course the 7700K was still faster at ST/gaming which was it's main saving grace. I actually think the lower end Ryzen 1700/1700X were more of a threat to 1800X sales than anything Intel had. Gamers were still going to choose the 7700K and people who valued productivity would choose Ryzen 7, but mostly the 1700 or 1700X. The 1800X really didn't make much sense to me at $500 but that was because there was a $300 1700 availble that was a few mouse clicks away from being the same chip.

Fast forward to today and the 9900K is an upgrade over the 2700X in every performance metric (maybe not performance/watt unless mobos follow strict Intel PL1/PL2 guidance) but it also costs twice as much (or more) once you factor in at least a strong HSF or AIO.

I can understand that fact alone will throw a lot of people off the 9900K, and rightly so. It's really expensive, and yes both Intel and AMD will have something cheaper next year that is just as good or better. That's inevitable. Maybe Intel will discount the 9900K then. Or rebrand it as an i7.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Even though we don't have to buy anything at all from Intel anymore...

I haven't purchased anything from Intel for my own personal use since, uh. Hmm. 1995?

So yeah that's been the case for awhile now.

 

[LTC8K6]

I haven't purchased anything from Intel for my own personal use since, uh. Hmm. 1995?

So yeah that's been the case for awhile now.

Sarcasm...

 

[Kenmitch]

Imagine a '10600K' being 6C/12T and '10700K' being 8C/16T

Using 10600k for example looks really strange. Really sounds kind of silly when you way it and doesn't even flow off the tongue. Maybe they'll do a naming reset?

 

[Mopetar]

Using 10600k for example looks really strange. Really sounds kind of silly when you way it and doesn't even flow off the tongue. Maybe they'll do a naming reset?

Might not be a bad time to if their next generation of chips have enough of an architectural overhaul and feature on whatever Intel's 10 nm process ends up being. Given that AMD has mimicked their i3/i5/i7 branding, I could see them looking for something new there as well.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Using 10600k for example looks really strange. Really sounds kind of silly when you way it and doesn't even flow off the tongue. Maybe they'll do a naming reset?

I agree.

 

[piokos]

I love also how revenue now also equals profit according to the Cuckooland post.
If Intel were making $3bn profit per month, after tax, from just their CPUs, even I'd have shares in them.

I said: if they added a $100 premium on each CPU.
You're the type of guy who protests during physics class because assuming no friction is unrealistic, aren't you?

And yes: this "premium" is exactly what turns into profits (minus taxes, as mentioned).
Intel and AMD are making similar products, in similar tech. They have HQs next to each other, they recruit the same people, they possibly buy toilet paper from the same supplier. Similarities go on and on.
Hence, their costs are very similar.
But AMD sells near the break-even point and makes little profit (if any). Intel sells with a premium and earns. Simple stuff.

Intel sells with a premium because they can: because of brand, of popularity, of their solutions being fairly robust and well known in the industry.
AMD doesn't have this luxury yet, but they're slowly working on it. They have a selling point already: they're seen as "enthusiast friendly". It lets them add a few quid to the price ;-)

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

So now Intel has a $100 premium on each of their CPUs...?
Even those sub $100 ones that make up a big chunk of their OEM sales...?
Be realistic. There's no $100 premium on each of their CPUs. Only the 9900k is sold above the price of a comparable AMD product.
BTW, perhaps you could share with us what Intel's actual annual profits are...?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Sarcasm...

Sorry, I enjoy throwing deadpan responses at sarcastic remarks. It's a hobby.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Let's have some fun with your figures.
You say Intel sells 40m CPUs per month, which is 480m a year.
Their annual revenue in 2017 was $62.8bn.
If their only revenue was from CPU sales that'd imply an ASP of $130 per CPU.
Somehow they've got a $100 premium because they're Intel and they are gods.
Your suggestion implies that they could break even with a $30 ASP per CPU.

Cuckooland.

 

[rbk123]

It's hard to grasp why 9900K price is such a shock. Just 1.5 year ago AMD launched 1800X at $500 and it was called good value for money ("great" being reserved for 1700).
Quite a few early adopters accepted that price.

Similar but different. That's because the 1800 doubled the core/threadcount of the highest consumer chip out there, and had no equal under $1k+. Of course it quickly turned out that more cores wasn't *broadly* needed and so, just like the 9900k, you had those early adopters who would pay it's asking price but after them it had to go down because everyone else is more value focused.
The 9900k isn't breaking any new ground like the 1800 did, and it'll go down in price if capacity starts exceeding the demand at it's current price.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry, I enjoy throwing deadpan responses at sarcastic remarks. It's a hobby.

It's all good.

 

[epsilon84]

So now Intel has a $100 premium on each of their CPUs...?
Even those sub $100 ones that make up a big chunk of their OEM sales...?
Be realistic. There's no $100 premium on each of their CPUs. Only the 9900k is sold above the price of a comparable AMD product.
BTW, perhaps you could share with us what Intel's actual annual profits are...?

What is 'comparable' in your eyes? I think the higher end Intel chips actually do command $100 higher prices than their AMD 'equivalents'. Of course, this doesn't apply for the lower end SKUs, but the % difference is similar, on the whole Intel still charges more, for less cores/threads.

ie. 8600K/9600K vs 2600X
8700K/9700K vs 2700X

The 9900K is where it is because it actually doesn't really have any true competition except for the HEDT chips. Calling the 2700X 'comparable' is a stretch since it basically loses every benchmark against the 9900K. It's comparable in core/thread count but that's about it.

 

[dlerious]

What is 'comparable' in your eyes? I think the higher end Intel chips actually do command $100 higher prices than their AMD 'equivalents'. Of course, this doesn't apply for the lower end SKUs, but the % difference is similar, on the whole Intel still charges more, for less cores/threads.

ie. 8600K/9600K vs 2600X
8700K/9700K vs 2700X

The 9900K is where it is because it actually doesn't really have any true competition except for the HEDT chips. Calling the 2700X 'comparable' is a stretch since it basically loses every benchmark against the 9900K. It's comparable in core/thread count but that's about it.

It has competition from Intel. Is it really $130+ better than the 8700K or $115+ better than the 9700K? I'm not seeing 30% improvement in performance compared to them.

 

[epsilon84]

It has competition from Intel. Is it really $130+ better than the 8700K or $115+ better than the 9700K? I'm not seeing 30% improvement in performance compared to them.

Well that is highly workload dependant.
In highly threaded workloads it is 30% faster. In lightly threaded tasks the difference is smaller, though if you predominantly only use lightly threaded apps then a 9900K is overkill anyway and you're better off with an i5 or at most i7.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Comparable in terms of performance.
8700k vs 2700x
8400 vs 2600
The price differences are pretty negligible, and certainly not a $100 premium at similar performance levels. Only the 9900k really has a premium to it, and that is understandable considering where it is at. However, the 9900k sales accou t for only a tiny percentage of the claimed 40m Intel CPUs sold per month.

The power of my posts has been to highlight that Cuckooland guy pulled some numbers out of his ass, and posted content based upon them being realistic. If Intel are charging a premium based on the superiority of their brand, that premium is absolutely nowhere near $100 except for the 9900k, which arguably has no comparable AMD product to even assess any Intel premium against.
It's not like I'm an Intel lover here either; my posting history suggests the complete opposite in fact. However, pretending that something is there when it really isn't, then that is hardly fair; Intel's brand is not worth $100 per CPU more than AMD's brand.

 

[piokos]

So now Intel has a $100 premium on each of their CPUs...?
Even those sub $100 ones that make up a big chunk of their OEM sales...?

I said it's just a model. You're from US or what? ;-)

Be realistic. There's no $100 premium on each of their CPUs. Only the 9900k is sold above the price of a comparable AMD product.

Be realistic. Intel is more expensive in every segment they coexist. Server CPUs in particular. And it's really OK.

BTW, perhaps you could share with us what Intel's actual annual profits are...?

Financial statements are public, so there's nothing further that I'd have to "share". They're making around $1.5bn monthly.

The power of my posts has been to highlight that Cuckooland guy pulled some numbers out of his ass, and posted content based upon them being realistic.

I never said the $100 is a realistic figure.
This is the exact sentence you're referring to:
"Let's say they're going to add a $100 premium for as long as they can."

 

[piokos]

It has competition from Intel. Is it really $130+ better than the 8700K or $115+ better than the 9700K? I'm not seeing 30% improvement in performance compared to them.

CPU performance is never linear to the the price at the top end. You're paying premium for having the fastest CPU on the platform. If Intel had some CPUs above 9900K, this CPU would be priced lower.

That's what happens when new products arrive. Old products don't magically become cheaper to manufacture or something like that.
It's just a simple demand effect. Part of the market (the one going for best performance and newest features) is simply jumping to the new tech.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Intel's revenue, and profits, don't solely come from its CPU sales. To allocate all of its profits to such is just a nonsense. Anyway, even if we did, you'd be looking at $18bn a year using your latest figures, which would equate to around $35-40 per CPU sale. You said that AMD barely break even at their prices, so if we want to compare apples with apples then we must assume that for Intel to break even it would suggest that their maximum premium could only be in that $35-40 range. Once you strip out earnings from other aspects of their business, and factor in that retail prices does not equal the price that Intel gets for selling the CPU, you really are hard pressed to suggest that any Intel premium is large at all.

 

[piokos]

Intel's revenue, and profits, don't solely come from its CPU sales. To allocate all of its profits to such is just a nonsense. Anyway, even if we did, you'd be looking at $18bn a year using your latest figures, which would equate to around $35-40 per CPU sale. You said that AMD barely break even at their prices, so if we want to compare apples with apples then we must assume that for Intel to break even it would suggest that their maximum premium could only be in that $35-40 range. Once you strip out earnings from other aspects of their business, and factor in that retail prices does not equal the price that Intel gets for selling the CPU, you really are hard pressed to suggest that any Intel premium is large at all.

As I said: the question was: why Intel asks a high premium for their new CPUs? And that's what I was talking about: why they do it and why it will work. It's a model. We're not evaluating Intel's stock price.

I don't understand why you're clinging on to the actual figures so much.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Why post fluffy figures in the first instance?
The premium that we see on the end price is mostly lining the pockets of retailers anyway. Intel can't suddenly sell its CPUs to intermediatories for any additional premium. In fact, its a commonly held belief that Intel even gives away CPUs for the OEM market, primarily to prevent AMD getting a foothold.
That 9900k selling for $600 isn't adding $100 to Intel's bottom line; they sell the CPU at an agreed price, and the retailers then gouge based upon availability. You can't just say that Intel can magic $4bn per month by increasing prices by $100. The world simply doesn't work like that.

 

[TheELF]

What matters now is that the 2700X is $309 on Newegg right now. That's insane. So $500 for the 9900K is ridiculous just like many people knew it would be. It's also insane because we all know 7nm Zen 3 is going to rock the damn house and lots of people are waiting for those chips, so Intel should try to incentivize the purchase by lowering the price, but we all know that won't happen because Intel just does Intel. Meanwhile Zen 3 approaches like a giant ROCK FROM SPACE.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
3dpm 53%
lux opencl 48%
handbrake hevc 48%
winrar 54%
WOT 95th 53%
Ashes 95th 44%
There are quite a few instances where a 50% higher price is acceptable because it runs 50% faster so $450,basically you pay a $50 premium for the igpu that can handle additional render and or transcode jobs without affecting the CPU and for the hope that avx maybe get's rolling at some point since y-cruncher that uses avx heavily runs 85% faster,if that ever happens zen will become e-waste.
It's not bad at all,in fact zen "3" is going to blow up into dust just like a giant rock from space would,what?! subtract 10% from these results?! still not nearly enough to make the slightest impact.

 

[Abwx]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
3dpm 53%

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
winrar 54%

Why Winrar and not 7zip..?

 

[wickedout2015]

Deleted