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

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

How will AMD respond to the release of Intel's 8-core processor?

  • Ride it out with the current line-up until 7nm in 2019

    Votes: 128 71.9%
  • Release Ryzen 7 2800X, using harvested chips based on the current version of the die

    Votes: 30 16.9%
  • Release Ryzen 7 2800X, based on a revision of the die, taking full advantage of the 12LP process

    Votes: 17 9.6%
  • Something else (specify below)

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • Total voters
    178

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
841
137
136
How many people say "well, I just like Intel better" and buy it regardless of value, performance or innovation. They are behind, they are not innovating and for anyone concerned with price/perf they are not competing. They may be making money, but the question is how long will the world be asleep ?
Outside of circles like this, Intel could keep putting out 14nm++++++ parts with Skylake architecture for the next several years and never take any kind of appreciable hit. That's the world we live in.

I keep buying Intel because I'm primarily gaming at high hz and AMD doesn't have a product for me but you can bet your ass I'll gladly switch to AMD the second they get their latency problems fixed and gaming performance is at parity with Intel. That said, the majority of the builds I've worked with friends and family on lately have been Ryzen boxes and I really hope to see AMD knock it out of the park with Zen 2.

It's the same reason why I keep buying NVIDIA GPUs. My last AMD GPU in my main box was a 7970 because that was the last time that AMD had a competitive GPU at the high end. I'd love to throw some love towards AMD and hope they become competitive at the high end on both CPU and GPU in 2019/2020.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,264
660
136
Outside of circles like this, Intel could keep putting out 14nm++++++ parts with Skylake architecture for the next several years and never take any kind of appreciable hit. That's the world we live in.

I keep buying Intel because I'm primarily gaming at high hz and AMD doesn't have a product for me but you can bet your ass I'll gladly switch to AMD the second they get their latency problems fixed and gaming performance is at parity with Intel. That said, the majority of the builds I've worked with friends and family on lately have been Ryzen boxes and I really hope to see AMD knock it out of the park with Zen 2.

It's the same reason why I keep buying NVIDIA GPUs. My last AMD GPU in my main box was a 7970 because that was the last time that AMD had a competitive GPU at the high end. I'd love to throw some love towards AMD and hope they become competitive at the high end on both CPU and GPU in 2019/2020.
Well, I have to agree. Intel is stuck on 14nm, and that will stop their move forward, but people will keep buying it, until AMD really smacks them down, and Ryzen2 MIGHT do that. I will reserve judgement until I see them, but its promising.

Yes, the 9900k is king of gaming, and single core speed, but price/perf on multi-threaded apps, the 1920x and above smack it down almost all of the time.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
Is there an AMD CPU that has better overall performance in non-server workloads than the 9900k? Is Intel having a hard time selling their 9900ks?
Was my post about performance or price to performance value?
Or does that not matter to in your framing? Is money in such a framing just tossed at what performs the best with no consideration of the insignificance of the workload you hope to accelerate?

To answer your question, a 1950x which just went for $480 recently on sale. It has double the core count and for my workload which is not a server workload, it is a much better processor. If I want to accelerate a workload and a 3.6Ghz 8 core isn't enough, a 4.6Ghz 8 core wont be. As I have always done, I seek out at least a doubling of core count. Did I buy a 1800x? Did I buy a 2700x? No, because the price/performance/value wasn't there. I bought a 1700 because it was a great value. The logic held within AMD. It most certainly holds for a 9900k which is triple the price of a 1700 but only 30-40% more performant.

So, I bought a 1950x. If an 8-core is maxed out that's what you do. In my personal environment for everyday usage, i use a range of dual/quad core intel processors because that's all you frankly need and that's all crappy software is authored to fully utilize. When I get into power use cases, I double the core count to 8 cores which when I max, turn on my 16 core machine. I have zero interest in the marginal performance of a 9900k. Triple the price for 30-40% performance gain is just stupid when there are alternatives. Were talking about a modern 8 core+ processor not some silly tool to get more FPS.

I agree, AMD has a great value proposition right now and should have a phenomenal value and potentially performance proposition in 2019/2020. I hope that their 2019/2020 lineup is stellar and that they hold both the performance and value crown.
That's obvious to anyone who is unbiased, that's all that needs to be stated, and that's all a general consumer should concern themselves with. Their 2019/2020 is going to be stellar. This has already been detailed.

That said, these claims that Intel somehow is behind, can't innovate/compete, etc are hilarious.
If AMD is in front, Intel is behind. It's logically how it works. What Intel does in such a capacity is their own business. I could care less. I'm not a share holder but had one mind to short their stock when I went long AMD as a pair trade.

When Intel's bottom line is impacted seriously they'll drop prices and not a moment sooner.
And until they drop their prices, I'm not spending a dime on their harder. So, that resolves that.

They're selling more CPUs than ever and can't keep up with demand.
Good for them, as a mindful consumer, I could care less what they do or don't sell. They don't offer a good performance/value compared to AMD which you even admitted. So, there's no reason for me, as a consumer, beyond being a fanboy to buy their hardware. And since I consider gaming a fun way to waste time, I'm not spending triple on a processor so I can get a higher FPS. So, that closes out this whole discussion. AMD's current offerings in almost every sector except the low core count packages dominates intel and that is slated in silicon to continue long into 2019/2020. My next purchase is a 32/64 core count processor. I have zero intention to buy another 8/16 core in the next 5 years. I already own systems w/ such counts. I may slot a 7nm version in my existing boards and sell off what I have if the power envelope shrinks substantially but that is unlikely.

So what special group of people are still buying intel chips? That answer is as obvious and obvious gets as is the lack of basis for doing so. Someone's gotta keep a lagging giant alive I guess
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
841
137
136
Well, I have to agree. Intel is stuck on 14nm, and that will stop their move forward, but people will keep buying it, until AMD really smacks them down, and Ryzen2 MIGHT do that. I will reserve judgement until I see them, but its promising.

Yes, the 9900k is king of gaming, and single core speed, but price/perf on multi-threaded apps, the 1920x and above smack it down almost all of the time.
Oh, AMD is killing it on the price/performance front across the board, no questions asked. Intel isn't even close to being the value proposition that AMD has brought and from the sounds of it AMD will take huge leaps forward on even that front in the coming year.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
Outside of circles like this, Intel could keep putting out 14nm++++++ parts with Skylake architecture for the next several years and never take any kind of appreciable hit. That's the world we live in.

I keep buying Intel because I'm primarily gaming at high hz and AMD doesn't have a product for me but you can bet your ass I'll gladly switch to AMD the second they get their latency problems fixed and gaming performance is at parity with Intel. That said, the majority of the builds I've worked with friends and family on lately have been Ryzen boxes and I really hope to see AMD knock it out of the park with Zen 2.

It's the same reason why I keep buying NVIDIA GPUs. My last AMD GPU in my main box was a 7970 because that was the last time that AMD had a competitive GPU at the high end. I'd love to throw some love towards AMD and hope they become competitive at the high end on both CPU and GPU in 2019/2020.
Anytime I hear an intel processor referenced, gaming comes up.
Then I look at steam data and I see the grand majority of people are on mid level/poverty tier GPUs. Literally less than 1-3% on outlandishly priced hardware that grants performance increases in the teens that hardly impacts the leisure activity of gaming. 9900k or bust? K, where's the 2080ti at? If it's all about that extra FPS and performance right? Why skimp on the GPU? $400+ worth of 32GB ram. $800 monitor... Samsung 970 pro nvme (wait is that fed through the chipset on intel's platform)? Hey man, while you're at it .. go for 128GB and make a ram drive and run your game from there (because latency and all). Clearly there's a point of ridiculousness and that correlates to price/performance. If you say that varies based on your budget... It sure does and its clear in a consumerist society, people like pissing their money away so that really means nothing objectively.

Obviously there is no denying that the 9900k performs better for games. It also isn't deniable that it costs 3x the price a Ryzen 1700 costs... For... a grand total of 30-40% increase in performance. If I buy a 1700 and equip it with a 2080ti, what FPS do i get vs a 9900k running a 1080? GPUs are made for gaming. They are the primary accelerator not CPUs. People will keep buying intel because they care to keep buying intel. In a funny way, it's this very truth that results in companies running aground. Even when the company is screwing up and fleecing their customers, people keep buying their products. Eventually and slowly this becomes a hollow minority and the company wakes up to a painful reality. Intel's pain hasn't even began for this reason. Their processors btw are going to be a non starter in China in coming years given that China has entered into an agreement and has began pumping out their own chips based on AMD's template.

Surprise : the market is bigger than a couple of people who ware willing to play triple the price for 30% more performance that probably translates ruffly to 10-15% more FPS since CPUs after-all aren't the main graphics accelerator.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
Oh, AMD is killing it on the price/performance front across the board, no questions asked. Intel isn't even close to being the value proposition that AMD has brought and from the sounds of it AMD will take huge leaps forward on even that front in the coming year.
In the tech industry, this has consequences for a competitor. Consequences that are clear and manifest over time. Typically the balance sheet, headlines, and enthusiast are the last to admit to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD–Chinese_joint_venture
What market do you think Intel is going to have in China?
Do you think this was reflected in their forward projections? Do you think they even account for the loss of potential market share they will not have access to? No.

Intel is a non-story. I am thankful for those preserving their existence. Competition is after-all crucial and I wouldn't want AMD to get high on the horse like Intel and begin gouging the snot out of me in the years to come like Intel did in prior years.

The 9900k is a response to AMD. AMD doesn't have to respond. They already won the performance/value crown and have a roadmap that will continue to make that clear to discerning consumers. Enjoy 10-15% higher FPS, I sleep good at night knowing I paid $170 (3x less ) for a processor that has 30% less performance. When I feel salty, I'll fire up my 16 core and laugh at the whole thought of performance envy. Then, i'll get on my quad core intel rig i paid 2x as much for as my 8 core and play the most heavily played games available at 60fps+ because gaming is just a goofy way to have fun leisurely wasting time. I'll sometime be rank #1 on the server. Sometimes, i'll be ranked last. Sometimes I'll be downloading/uploading so heavily that my character will be skipping around the screen. It's just a game. Life will go on. I don't think I ever even looked at CPU utilization while gaming in the decade+ I've done so. I might upgrade my gaming rig in 2020 to something 7nm mid tier just to cut the power usage down a bit.
 
Last edited:

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,714
70
106
Enjoy 10-15% higher FPS, I sleep good at night knowing I paid $170 (3x less ) for a processor that has 30% less performance.
Yeah because you are not a professional,in the industry giving your competition a 30% advantage is very bad for business,hey just look at the example at hand, AMD is forced to sell at 1/3 the price because the competition is (at least) 30% ahead...
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,264
660
136
Yeah because you are not a professional,in the industry giving your competition a 30% advantage is very bad for business,hey just look at the example at hand, AMD is forced to sell at 1/3 the price because the competition is (at least) 30% ahead...
The two chips he is comparing are not the same. The 1700 is the slowest of the last generatiom and the 2700x would be only 10% slower, but at half the price.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
The two chips he is comparing are not the same. The 1700 is the slowest of the last generatiom and the 2700x would be only 10% slower, but at half the price.
I see where he is coming from though. If its MT performance you want, It's hard to beat the value of a last gen 1700 at firesale prices, or even a 2600 at $160. Nothing else from Intel, or even AMD for that matter, comes close.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
Well, I have to agree. Intel is stuck on 14nm, and that will stop their move forward, but people will keep buying it, until AMD really smacks them down, and Ryzen2 MIGHT do that. I will reserve judgement until I see them, but its promising.

Yes, the 9900k is king of gaming, and single core speed, but price/perf on multi-threaded apps, the 1920x and above smack it down almost all of the time.
Zen 2 will probably be to Intel what Ryzen 1st gen was to the 7700K - it could potentially offer twice the cores for a similar price. Not that I think desktop users really need 12C or 16C, but it will have a drop down effect for the lower core count chips - hopefully this forces Intel to respond with lower prices of their own, whatever their offerings may be next year - 14nm or 10nm.

WR to value I find AMD's best value lies in the midrange Ryzen 5 line, not TR. 2600 for $160 is unbeatable value. Unless you really need the cores, it is enough for basically anyone except perhaps high refresh rate gamers.

TR and the 9900K trade blows in value depending on the model, with the value lieing in the last gen stuff. The 1920X isn't really any faster than the 9900K, sure the CPU itself is $100 cheaper but the mobos cost $300 at a minimum. The 2920X is slightly faster than the 1920X but not really worth the $250 premium. The same can be said for the 1950X vs 2950X comparison, $300 for slightly higher clockspeeds and a few % IPC?
 

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,714
70
106
The two chips he is comparing are not the same. The 1700 is the slowest of the last generatiom and the 2700x would be only 10% slower, but at half the price.
Anand seems to disagree with you.
Just because there is some stuff where intel is only 10% ahead does not mean that that's the difference.
Plenty of stuff,heavily multithreaded stuff mind you,running at 40 to 50% faster,and that's with a stock 9900k that runs lower all core turbos then it's HTT less counter part.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review
3dpm 53%
lux opencl 48%
pov 37%
handbrake hevc 48%
7zip 1805 43%
winrar 54%
WOT 45% - 95th 53%
Ashes 95th 44%
And the cherry on top
y-cruncher 85%
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
Yeah because you are not a professional,in the industry giving your competition a 30% advantage is very bad for business,hey just look at the example at hand, AMD is forced to sell at 1/3 the price because the competition is (at least) 30% ahead...
Selective reading? My use cases for 8-16 core are completely professional and work related only.
I work in the industry so know quite a lot about it. I assume you do as well? Were talking about desktop CPUs btw and the 9900k is a CPU tuned for gaming not professional workloads. Professional workloads are about multi-core performance not single threaded performance where there 9900k shines. Where do you see 5Ghz :
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/xeon/scalable/platinum-processors.html
Nowhere because that's not the primary focus of professional workloads. Moar cores is because the software is written carefully and with pure scalability in mind.

AMD is selling at a price that reflects they want to capture market share. Intel is selling at a price that reflects they still believe they wont lose any based on their legacy branding. That's a recipe for a reality check in the industry. It happens all the time. Ask various infrastructure providers what happened when the big data corps went white box wares and abandoned their ridiculously priced hardware some years back... a trend that is still not complete. Facebook's mission for instance ends around 2020 for forklifting external hardware out of their data centers and rolling their own. ARM is making strides. RiSc-V is on the horizon and already has penetration. Storage is going towards direct network attachment w/ no CPU involved via smart Nics and nvme. And here you are making false conjectures about AMD's pricing. The real pain hasn't even begun. Why do you think their upcoming chip is called 'Rome'? Have you even considered the I/O implications on that thing? That is my next likely CPU purchase. The majority of my 8/16 core rigs will be sold at that point. I bought into a platform and roadmap as most professionals do not some one off last minute attempt to seize the performance crown on a dead socket and process node.

As I consumer I see : price/performance value and roadmaps. Intel is unequivocally dead to me via this analysis. 30% more 8 core performance for triple or quadruple the price = DEAD... I can buy a 16 core from the competitor for intel's flagship 8 core price and did w/ confidence knowing there was nothing coming from Intel.. Wont be for years. I haven't even highlighted the fundamental security flaws in their processors.

Anand seems to disagree with you.
Number crunching = export to GPU
Video decoding/encoding = GPU
Offline Ray tracing = Now accelerated by GPUs
Video gaming = leisure hobby of wasting time (No need to go crazy)
Zipping/unzipping files = blink of an eye even on a 4 core and rarely done

Computing is going towards HSA not CPU centricity. CPU centricity was yester year's paradigm.
GPUs are capable of accelerating anything that is straight forward dumb but exhausting computation.
As such, CPUs are generally sufficiently clocked and performant as long as you have enough cores to handle a heavily diverse range of process execution simultaneously.

Intel failed in seizing the embedded systems/mobile market because they're intel.
Now Intel faces serious competition on both the desktop and server market.. because they're intel.

In the coming years, ARM and Risc-V will present even more competition as will the ever evolving architectures that put ARM cores closer to I/O and nix the CPU from the picture directly :


The emperor has no clothes anymore. Everyone now sees beyond Intel.
It's been a good ride up to 4 core with Intel. 14nm and pcie 3.0 is yester-year.
The future is 7nm and and PCIe 4.0 (AMD btw is rumored to have infinity fabric exposed over PCIE 4.0).
It's over my friend. Again, platforms and roadmaps vs performance crowns. Something professionals focus on.
Yester-year's company vs tomorrow's.
 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,100
156
126
Were talking about desktop CPUs btw and the 9900k is a CPU tuned for gaming not professional workloads.
Well yeah. And that's who is buying desktops these days. I mean I'm telling you Intel would have killed off the desktop if not for the reinterest in PC gaming, with or without AMD.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
321
96
Well yeah. And that's who is buying desktops these days. I mean I'm telling you Intel would have killed off the desktop if not for the reinterest in PC gaming, with or without AMD.
And they aint buyin intel for christmas or 9900ks because you dont need them to game...

New Retail Data Shows AMD CPUs Outselling Intel 2:1


So hang up this tired argument. I'm off to the Ryzen 3000 series thread ahead of CES 2019 where an exciting future is being discussed. 2018 is done and the numbers headed into 2019 speak for themselves. The masses are always late to trends like this. I got on board in 2017. The rest is history
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,100
156
126
And they aint buyin intel for christmas or 9900ks because you dont need them to game...
Europe might have gotten the shaft on the supply. Can't buy product if it's not in stock!

Amazon for instance was going in and out of stock of the 9700K until the end of November.
 

dlerious

Senior member
Mar 4, 2004
647
27
116
Europe might have gotten the shaft on the supply. Can't buy product if it's not in stock!

Amazon for instance was going in and out of stock of the 9700K until the end of November.
Going in and out of stock doesn't mean much if they're only getting a few at a time. I don't know how many they got, but Intel is reportedly cutting the DIY supply in favor of SI/OEM.
 
Feb 23, 2017
454
338
106
Those Mindfactory.de market share figures are particularly interesting.
The i7 8700K is still an excellent gaming CPU, and should not be low on stock, yet it is being outsold by the R5 2600, R5 2600X, and the R7 2700X.
The i7 8700K holding a pretty steady market share for the entire year.
So we can extrapolate from this that those looking to upgrade are going to AMD instead of upgrading to an i7 8700K (or i9) irrespective of whether the i9 9900K is available for purchase.
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
462
13
116
Intel's supply issue is resulting higher prices to reach equilibrium for supply/demand by lowering demand. In Europe the 8700k costs 100 euros more than 6 months ago. Intel's own CPUs are less desirable among each other compared to 6 months ago.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
711
51
136
AMD is selling at a price that reflects they want to capture market share. Intel is selling at a price that reflects they still believe they wont lose any based on their legacy branding.
That's quite the strawman.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
Those Mindfactory.de market share figures are particularly interesting.
The i7 8700K is still an excellent gaming CPU, and should not be low on stock, yet it is being outsold by the R5 2600, R5 2600X, and the R7 2700X.
The i7 8700K holding a pretty steady market share for the entire year.
So we can extrapolate from this that those looking to upgrade are going to AMD instead of upgrading to an i7 8700K (or i9) irrespective of whether the i9 9900K is available for purchase.
Don't think its a matter of stock, that is more a reflection of AMD pricing their products at a level to sell and gain marketshare.

I would recommend a Ryzen 2600 to the vast majority of people over a 8700K as well. $160 vs $370 (Amazon prices) for a rough 20% increase in performance is a hard sell. The only exception would be for high refresh gamers - if you already spent $1000 on a GPU and $500 on a shiny new 144Hz monitor, an extra $200 is probably easier to stomach than some average Joe who wants to keep their new PC rig under the $1000 mark.

WR to the 9900K, its price dictates that it will be a low volume product. No way will a $500 CPU outsell one 1/3 the price, it just doesn't happen. It's a desktop CPU at HEDT pricing, with performance that may appeal to a certain niche - gamers who need to do a bit of productivity on the side.

ub4ty is right that people who are 'serious' about needing more cores wouldn't settle on a 9900K - you can get a 1950X for a similar price, for example. Those who are happy with 8C performance will most likely settle on a much cheaper 2700/2700X - again, with the exception of gamers who want that last 20%.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
264
32
101
And for the the love of God Intel, Stop w/ all the stupid codenames. K.I.S.S, no one's buying into your utterly confusing market gimmick of 500 goofy platform names. This is another thing you can learn from AMD that got you into trouble... Simplify your offerings and stop trying to obscure your shortcomings w/ silly behind gimmicky 'MUh quantified pristine suborbital lake' desktop processor. Or muh crystalized unobtanium bronze Xeon processor. Get your head out of your behind and simplify your product/platform nomenclature. No one's buying it.... o_O

I think Intel would greatly benefit by simplifying their product names and lines and SKU's. With AMD the numbering scheme makes it pretty clear what you are looking at quickly. I think Intel tries to obsfucate things which isn't helping at all.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
264
32
101
Is there an AMD CPU that has better overall performance in non-server workloads than the 9900k? Is Intel having a hard time selling their 9900ks?

I agree, AMD has a great value proposition right now and should have a phenomenal value and potentially performance proposition in 2019/2020. I hope that their 2019/2020 lineup is stellar and that they hold both the performance and value crown.

That said, these claims that Intel somehow is behind, can't innovate/compete, etc are hilarious. When Intel's bottom line is impacted seriously they'll drop prices and not a moment sooner. They're selling more CPUs than ever and can't keep up with demand.


Intel is having a hard time selling their 9900K. For one thing they go in and out of stock often. The second thing is their is no doubt that the 2700 and 2700X trounce it in number of units sold. You don't think Intel has fallen behind in their manufacturing process? You don't think that this is going to hurt them going forward? Who is to say that the gap doesn't widen even more instead of narrow? You don't think they have dropped prices yet? Nor will they have to do it drastically come 7nm Ryzen? What about them having to up their core counts? This hurts their bottom line. What about all the negative public relations hits they are constantly being battered with? Right now Intel looks desperate and their only answers are vaporware.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
264
32
101
Yes, Intel isn’t going to die. That’s ridiculous, but the chiplet approach from AMD means they can gain a lot more ground than they otherwise could. It makes much more efficient use of the resources they have available and allows them to offer some high core count products that Intel will struggle to compete with in the server space and probably outright kills Intel’s HEDT.

It almost is a perfect storm, but Intel has a lot of cushy margins they can eat into. They won’t have problems matching AMD on cost for value if they absolutely need to even if shareholders may not like it.


This is only partially true. They may still have healthy margins but their cpu's are way more expensive to produce and the yields are way lower so that is a big problem.
 
Jun 3, 2011
10,000
118
126
Tbh i think that $500 for a 9900 is very little money. That's the kind of cpu that a few years ago was on the enthusiast platform, and if you look at the 3ghz 6990k it costs twice the money of the 9900. We simply never thought a consumer grade cpu would come with 8c/16t.

Anyway, this discussion is redundant. We need to wait and see if the ryzen 3 stories are real, because if they are, nobody is gonna buy Intel cpus for self-builds anymore. Until the time comes, it's just speculation, Jim.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
264
32
101
Tbh i think that $500 for a 9900 is very little money. That's the kind of cpu that a few years ago was on the enthusiast platform, and if you look at the 3ghz 6990k it costs twice the money of the 9900. We simply never thought a consumer grade cpu would come with 8c/16t.

Anyway, this discussion is redundant. We need to wait and see if the ryzen 3 stories are real, because if they are, nobody is gonna buy Intel cpus for self-builds anymore. Until the time comes, it's just speculation, Jim.

$500? Very little money? For one thing nobody is selling it for und $550. Plus it has no cooler. So in reality it is nearly $600 where you can get a 2700X for just over $289 here in the USA.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS