Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

opethdisciple · 19 Jul 2019 at 14:06

Orange Nexus said:
AIO on the 9700K. Prism on the Ryzens.

Not sure why he would mention about the importance of using as much same components. Check out the comments in the vid. Most in awe with the results.

Oh. so you mean the Ryzen is better than in the video?

Orange Nexus · 19 Jul 2019 at 14:22

opethdisciple said:
Oh. so you mean the Ryzen is better than in the video?

What do you mean? Its still in its infancy (7nm). We are still finding out stuff about it. Most recent is, i read here, that it would be ideal to keep the cpu no more than 55c to realize higher boost. Doubt you can achieve such using the air cooler. Maybe a D15.

He said that he tried to use the same components between the systems to eliminate whatever, then use the stock cooler on one cpu and an aio on the other, does not sound like he did an effort.

z10m · 19 Jul 2019 at 15:20

Lolik said:
yeap, like them mostly, but using stock cooler on the cpu that boosts similar to gpus and giving competition 360 aio (irc) , they ****** up

Not that it would fix issues like this....
Drops below 60fps... ouch....

nhornby51743 · 19 Jul 2019 at 16:07

VincentHanna said:
A certain large e-retailer has dropped the 9900k price by £60 today (saw it on Hotukdeals)

I snapped it up for 400 biffs. That and a decent Z390 can be had for 150. Barely any more than a 3700x and X570.

Lolik · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:17

nhornby51743 said:
I snapped it up for 400 biffs. That and a decent Z390 can be had for 150. Barely any more than a 3700x and X570.

That's a good deals there, gents; no point of denying that.
p.s:

old tech.

nomadd · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:24

Lolik said:
p.s: old tech.

p.s:

still fastest gaming tech.

Lolik · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:25

nomadd said:
p.s: still fastest gaming tech.

it is, still old

nomadd · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:38

Lolik said:
it is, still old

It is still the fastest in gaming.

beany_bot · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:41

nomadd said:
p.s: still fastest gaming tech.

Not if your are streaming it aint. Or running chrome tabs. Or anything else in the backround really.

nomadd · 19 Jul 2019 at 17:57

beany_bot said:
Not if your are streaming it aint. Or running chrome tabs. Or anything else in the backround really.

So..

..weak.

nhornby51743 · 19 Jul 2019 at 20:02

Lolik said:
That's a good deals there, gents; no point of denying that.
p.s: old tech.

I'll take 'old tech' that whups 'new tech' any day of the week, and twice on Sunday

nhornby51743 · 19 Jul 2019 at 20:13

nomadd said:
So..

..weak.

Beany Bot has a chub on for Dr Su, by the sound of things.

smilingcrow · 19 Jul 2019 at 20:42

Curlyriff said:
Except it was £329 on release not £200. Stop talking rubbish.
You get 20% uplift at same release price. Otherwise you might as well say you get a 2 to 10% increase (depending on workload) for the i9 9900k Vs i7 8700k for £160 difference now.
AMD released the CPU series at pretty much the same release price each gen whilst just adding more to stack and you just ignore that every post you do.

You can view it many ways.
Prior to Zen 2 being released I saw the 2700 going for ~£155 at a few places.
People looking to buy Intel at that point weren't comparing Intel current pricing with AMD's release prices but the prices available AT THE TIME YOU BUY which is the only real numbers that matters.
That comparison was as valid then as it is now; post Zen 2 release.
If it isn't valid now then it wasn't then which makes a mockery of the whole pricing issue.
You can't have it just one way unless you have an agenda or are a bit simple.
I don't have a problem at all with AMD reducing prices but it does have a downside as it means the current generation can look very poor value compared to the previous.
AMD aren't just competing against Intel but also themselves.
Many of you living on a cloud of 'must have the latest, regardless of value' are often oblivious to the fact that to the vast majority PCs are tools like a Ford Fiesta, so value trumps MPH or 0-62 figures.

Hotwired · 21 Jul 2019 at 08:44

smilingcrow said:
You can view it many ways.
Prior to Zen 2 being released I saw the 2700 going for ~£155 at a few places.
People looking to buy Intel at that point weren't comparing Intel current pricing with AMD's release prices but the prices available AT THE TIME YOU BUY which is the only real numbers that matters.
That comparison was as valid then as it is now; post Zen 2 release.
If it isn't valid now then it wasn't then which makes a mockery of the whole pricing issue.
You can't have it just one way unless you have an agenda or are a bit simple.
I don't have a problem at all with AMD reducing prices but it does have a downside as it means the current generation can look very poor value compared to the previous.
AMD aren't just competing against Intel but also themselves.
Many of you living on a cloud of 'must have the latest, regardless of value' are often oblivious to the fact that to the vast majority PCs are tools like a Ford Fiesta, so value trumps MPH or 0-62 figures.

It still sounds daft to say that a new product is priced too high because of last gen which isn't being made anymore. Which is what was said.

Does a car maker price to compete with their last gen?

4K8KW10 said:
AMD wants from us to pay 50% on top of its price tag of £200 and get 20% or so performance uplift. 50 for 20 is not normal.

I mean what are they going to do? Price to compete with the product they stopped making?

2000 will leech some sales but they will fade out of the market eventually.

TrM · 21 Jul 2019 at 09:09

smilingcrow said:
You can view it many ways.
Prior to Zen 2 being released I saw the 2700 going for ~£155 at a few places.
People looking to buy Intel at that point weren't comparing Intel current pricing with AMD's release prices but the prices available AT THE TIME YOU BUY which is the only real numbers that matters.
That comparison was as valid then as it is now; post Zen 2 release.
If it isn't valid now then it wasn't then which makes a mockery of the whole pricing issue.
You can't have it just one way unless you have an agenda or are a bit simple.
I don't have a problem at all with AMD reducing prices but it does have a downside as it means the current generation can look very poor value compared to the previous.
AMD aren't just competing against Intel but also themselves.
Many of you living on a cloud of 'must have the latest, regardless of value' are often oblivious to the fact that to the vast majority PCs are tools like a Ford Fiesta, so value trumps MPH or 0-62 figures.

I find it strange you think this way. And reducing price a of previous generation is a simple technique of raising some cash on something they do not make anymore. You brought up a Ford Fiesta have a look on the showroom next time they do a major update to the car and look at every ford dealer slashing the prices of the older model when the new one araives maybe even in the month or 2 before release date.

Same happens with and cpu they always have. And are always way behind intel in one major area and thanks to dell hp etc that doesn’t look like it’s gonna change that’s pretty built sales u look at dell, hp and the other major pc sellers and you’ll see 8th and 9th gen by the pages but Pearce ad near as many and systems exp on a older platform amd have to sell there old stock somehow and reducing the price to make the 2700 more atractivr then then 3700 etc the new cpu are more powerful in so many ways and not just a small upgrade either in many ways.

humbug · 21 Jul 2019 at 12:23

smilingcrow said:
You can view it many ways.
Prior to Zen 2 being released I saw the 2700 going for ~£155 at a few places.
People looking to buy Intel at that point weren't comparing Intel current pricing with AMD's release prices but the prices available AT THE TIME YOU BUY which is the only real numbers that matters.
That comparison was as valid then as it is now; post Zen 2 release.
If it isn't valid now then it wasn't then which makes a mockery of the whole pricing issue.
You can't have it just one way unless you have an agenda or are a bit simple.
I don't have a problem at all with AMD reducing prices but it does have a downside as it means the current generation can look very poor value compared to the previous.
AMD aren't just competing against Intel but also themselves.
Many of you living on a cloud of 'must have the latest, regardless of value' are often oblivious to the fact that to the vast majority PCs are tools like a Ford Fiesta, so value trumps MPH or 0-62 figures.

If AMD priced the new generation of CPU's like the cut price outgoing generation, after a few generations the price of CPU's would be 0.

Think about it.... :rolleyes:

humbug · 21 Jul 2019 at 12:34

thenewoc said:
Well at the moment you could build a 9900k system for less than the equivalent AMD but even so you'd be buying in to a PCIe gen 3.0 platform. The AMD choice however isn't the value proposition it once was, not in the short term anyway. Once you factor in socket consistency over chipset changes then AMD is better but that also depends how much longer AM4 will be around.

Really? an R7 3700X is £320, i9 9900K is £480.
An i9 9920X is £1400, an R9 3900X is £480.

DragonQ · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:16

i9-9900K is £405.

humbug · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:23

DragonQ said:
i9-9900K is £405.

I see it, still £85 more than the 3700X

tamzzy · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:25

total platform cost:

9900k (£405) + z390 aorus pro wifi (£151) + 16gb e-die ram (£70) + scythe mugen b (£43) = £669
3700x (£320) + asus x570 tuf gaming wifi (£240) + 16gb e-die ram (£70) = £630