• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Core 9000 series

mcast said:
I find it pretty underhand that intel raises all their 8xxx prices by £100 a couple of months before launch, hoping we will think the 9xxx isn't that much more :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Are these price rises down to Intel or the retailers or a bit of both? RCP for the 8700K is listed as $359.00 - $370.00.
 
IT Troll said:
Are these price rises down to Intel or the retailers or a bit of both? RCP for the 8700K is listed as $359.00 - $370.00.
Click to expand...

both tbh, intels rrp's are high as much like nvidia they dont want to lose out on making a profit on the previous series of products. but intel seem to have doubled down on prices though and totally ignored amd apart from adding more cores or at least releasing some cpus that they could have shipped cre/thread count wise a couple of years ago if they wanted to. so now its "well we added more cores so we have to charge more" rather than being a bit more reasonable and figuring out they cant just take us to the cleaners due to amd having nothing to compete with.

as for lionel i watched that and im rather confused by it yes i agree that you shouldnt buy without some sort of independent review or information to back up you're choice but the tone that came across from that video was rather different to the one last year where he laid in to intel, its almost like he got told off or warned last year after he blew his top at them.
 
@Gibbo
Why is it costing about £100 more from here then buying it in the US+vat+tax?(Core i9-9900K)

Every retailer has it pre-order so it can't be a shortage.
 
deuse said:
Every retailer has it pre-order so it can't be a shortage.
Click to expand...

They will all be allocated some stock, but that will more than likely be much less than the demand for the product - so they can sell it for less money run out of stock in the same amount of time and make less £££'s. Or they can charge a small fortune for it, maybe not sell out but end up with stock to build entire systems which will net them a whole load more cash than just selling a processor.

Oh, and yes, it is a shortage. Intel have got a very real supply issue presently, and it's not going to go away anytime soon.
 
Journey said:
They will all be allocated some stock, but that will more than likely be much less than the demand for the product - so they can sell it for less money run out of stock in the same amount of time and make less £££'s. Or they can charge a small fortune for it, maybe not sell out but end up with stock to build entire systems which will net them a whole load more cash than just selling a processor.

Oh, and yes, it is a shortage. Intel have got a very real supply issue presently, and it's not going to go away anytime soon.
Click to expand...


Citation needed.

In the US a certain retailer is taking all orders at $402 There is nothing about "you may not get the cpu"
 
deuse said:
Citation needed.

In the US a certain retailer is taking all orders at $402 There is nothing about "you may not get the cpu"
Click to expand...

They will take your order and you will get your CPU but it may be a while until the order is fulfilled.
 
Troezar said:
He may be right in this instance but we can't take Linus at face value. I get the impression he is heavily sponsored by Intel.

I'd just like to see reviewers try to show both sets of hardware in their best light. I don't care what settings are used just get the best results from each and present the figures fairly.

I think the time is coming where consumers will have to subscribe to reviewers and no sponsorship or freebies will be allowed.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the latter for sure.

Setup patreon.

Resell hardware when done with reviews to recover bulk of purchase cost, patreon funding should cover rest along with ad revenue.

I would like to see different reviewers each have their own testing methodology.

One reviewer all hardware in best light, max OC, best ram, tuning etc.
Other reviewer OOB testing.

Also when games are tested instead of say 10 reviewers testing the same 8 games between them have them each use different games so we have a far wider range of games tested. I feel games tested should include at least 2 games from each of these categories.

Games not supporting more than 1-2 threads. (games that thrive on per core performance)
Games supporting 4-8 threads but low utilisation.
Games supporting many threads and heavy utilisation.
Triple AAA games
Indie Games.
Vulkan games
DX9 games
DX11 games
DX12 games

At least 3 hardware generations need to be shown on hardware comparison graphs.

Measure other metrics not just basic frame rate performance.

Power consumption during the game.
Stutters, min frame times when locked at 60fps (probably most common config), I have seen games have low cpu utilisation and gpu utilisation so in theory its a cakewalk for the hardware but then is a stutter fest in some configs.
Loading times during games.
Temperatures during games.

Also when comparing say a gigabyte 1080ti to an asus 1080ti, there is no need to redo performance tests, as thats largely based on silicon lottery, just do temps test in those situations.
 
chrcoluk said:
Agreed on the latter for sure.

Setup patreon.

Resell hardware when done with reviews to recover bulk of purchase cost, patreon funding should cover rest along with ad revenue.

I would like to see different reviewers each have their own testing methodology.

One reviewer all hardware in best light, max OC, best ram, tuning etc.
Other reviewer OOB testing.

Also when games are tested instead of say 10 reviewers testing the same 8 games between them have them each use different games so we have a far wider range of games tested. I feel games tested should include at least 2 games from each of these categories.

Games not supporting more than 1-2 threads. (games that thrive on per core performance)
Games supporting 4-8 threads but low utilisation.
Games supporting many threads and heavy utilisation.
Triple AAA games
Indie Games.
Vulkan games
DX9 games
DX11 games
DX12 games

At least 3 hardware generations need to be shown on hardware comparison graphs.

Measure other metrics not just basic frame rate performance.

Power consumption during the game.
Stutters, min frame times when locked at 60fps (probably most common config), I have seen games have low cpu utilisation and gpu utilisation so in theory its a cakewalk for the hardware but then is a stutter fest in some configs.
Loading times during games.
Temperatures during games.

Also when comparing say a gigabyte 1080ti to an asus 1080ti, there is no need to redo performance tests, as thats largely based on silicon lottery, just do temps test in those situations.
Click to expand...

All sounds good to me. I'm already on Patreon, donating to those I think produce good quality content. I can't complain if I'm not prepared to help change things.
 
chrcoluk said:
Also when comparing say a gigabyte 1080ti to an asus 1080ti, there is no need to redo performance tests, as thats largely based on silicon lottery, just do temps test in those situations.
Click to expand...

True on Pascal and it seem Turing, the cooler performance is the benchmark that matters. As all of them are voltage locked, and in the case of 1080Ti, all good AIB were clocked to 2021 either way with tiny differences between them.

However this doesn't apply to something like Vega 64. Were from one hand you have some great cards like Nitro & Red Devil, pulling 20% higher perf over reference.
Or having the Asus Strix, with engineering faults like the non existing VRM cooling, which makes the card performing bellow the reference one! Yet the Strix is used by most of the youtube reviewers as the representative of Vega 64 performance, which is completely wrong with reality.
 
Simon Belmont said:
i7 8700k shot up in price over £100. Wasn't it £349 a few months back? Now it's near £500:eek: 9900k £600+? Just don't buy it. Nvidia sells a GPU for £1500. That's just nuts. My PC days are coming to a end. Really looking forward to PS5.
Click to expand...

And become a console peasant ... NEVER! :p
 
deuse said:
Citation needed.

In the US a certain retailer is taking all orders at $402 There is nothing about "you may not get the cpu"
Click to expand...

If we are thinking the same one then you still have to pay an import fee deposit (which is pretty much entirely 20% VAT) which makes it just below £500. Still £100 off though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom