i9 9900k pricing

[Journey]

The AMD crowd just don't seem to follow the fastest piece of technology being argued about surprisingly isn't value for money.

What does the branding of a product have to do with this?

Take the P4 2.8GHz model released in Nov '02 at a cost of ~$508 and the Athlon 2800+ released in Oct '02 released at ~$397, the AMD option cost less, but was the same speed or faster than the Intel equivalent. Would you be saying the same thing then? I doubt you were in to PC's then so maybe it is irrelevant, but therefore so is your statement and isn't needed.

 

[~>Dg<~]

I don't ONLY game at 4K, I require a multithreaded CPU for work purposes. It's not a case of 'budget', it's a case of NOT WASTING MONEY, and having one system that does everything I need and want suits me perfectly, as it does most people. You don't seem to understand that. For someone gaming at 1080p, there's never been any debate the 9900K is the fastest, but it's also the most expensive and not remotely within the reach of the vast majority, as those gaming at 1080p are on the tightest budgets, as surveys clearly show. Nevermind the fact that using a £600 CPU for nothing but gaming at 1080p is ridiculous overkill to the extreme! The 9900k won't even be on their radar, and for others like myself who are at 4K, and don't want to throw money down the toilet, it's seen for exactly what it is... overpriced and completely unnecessary. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'fanboyism'... it's called common sense.

to you its wasting money to others it isnt. just dont try and make others purchases a big deal. we use our chips just like you do. yet cause we may pay more its a waste ?

i have numerous rigs. not just one for all. the reason is. i want the best for each purpose. its not overkill for 1080. its just the fastest at 1080. i have a 7900x and play at 1080. thats even worse in your eyes. . yet it gives me what i want. performance. you cant game at 4k and keep the fps like 1080. thats why people buy to you overkill cpus. cause they want the highest fps for modern monitors. 4k you just arent keeping the same fps regardless of what you spend at the euipment just isnt available yet to do so in modern games. so you use a lower resolution. its a shame you just cant accept people will buy and be happy. the price isnt that dear like said i have a £1000 cpu for 1080 what does £600 do ? it doesnt matter. no one is saying amd is bad. great bargin chips. they just not as fast at what we talking about. which is upper end gaming. not it will do gaming.

gibbo has said the chips are flying out. so its obvious its not a waste and they are popular.

if you want the best bang for buck newish cpu its the intel 8400 . £150 quicker than any amd chip period at games.
if you want a great gaming chip but strong multi side for reasonable amount the 2700x is a good shout. just dont expect absolute performance. its 20/30 fps down on other intel chips. thats what you save money for though. some are happy with that .

 

[Drollic]

What does the branding of a product have to do with this?

Take the P4 2.8GHz model released in Nov '02 at a cost of ~$508 and the Athlon 2800+ released in Oct '02 released at ~$397, the AMD option cost less, but was the same speed or faster than the Intel equivalent. Would you be saying the same thing then? I doubt you were in to PC's then so maybe it is irrelevant, but therefore so is your statement and isn't needed.

The AMD lot just don't seem to grasp things, needlesly ranting about how ryzen offers better value for similar performance. The problem is, that everyone already knows this so there's little need to keep mentioning it. People also know the Intel prices are sky high offering poor value for money in some cases. The issue with a lot of posts aimed at those buying 9 series is that it's not your (the posters) money and you don't know what is/isn't affordable to others.

Just as an example given it's clearly so difficult to grasp, who's getting better deal - the guy who's spent 25% of his monthly wage on Ryzen 2700x, or the guy who's spent 20% of his monthly wage on a 9900k? The point being, nobody knows the finances of anyone else unless they state otherwise so the constant argument of value gets silly.

Like I've already said out of curiosity, I wonder how they apply this logic to other products and wonder what they think. Have they seen the value for money you get with high end limited run Porsches that get flipped compared to one model below that offers 95% the same drive on the road legally I wonder. It's huge money for small gains... and on and on with just about every top end product that's ever existed providing the company selling it has the brand to sell it high. Intel have the brand to do this.

 

[Nelly]

if you want the best bang for buck newish cpu its the intel 8400 . £150 quicker than any amd chip period at games.
if you want a great gaming chip but strong multi side for reasonable amount the 2700x is a good shout. just dont expect absolute performance. its 20/30 fps down on other intel chips. thats what you save money for though. some are happy with that

Once overclocked the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is 7% faster on average over 36 games compared to the Intel i5-8400 at 1080p.

Source: TechSpot

The Intel i5-8400 is around £250 these days. Quicker yes, but only by a few fps at 720p. Overclocked AMD Ryzen 5 2600 will do pretty much the same as a 2600X in this video below and cost £160 or less.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

The Intel i5-8400 is around £250 these days. Quicker yes, but only by a few fps at 720p. Overclocked AMD Ryzen 5 2600 will do pretty much the same as a 2600X in this video below and cost £160 or less.

Intel still got better minimums at some points though, the fps tanks a bit at the end of the GTA benchmark on the 2600x.

 

[Nelly]

Intel still got better minimums at some points though, the fps tanks a bit at the end of the GTA benchmark on the 2600x.

Yeah, however, according to TechSpot/Hardware Unboxed, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is 10% faster than the Intel i5-8400 at 1080p. Looking at minimums the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 are higher by 9fps on average. Mind you, they was using RAM at 3400MHz on the AMD chip compared to the 2666MHz on the Intel i5-8400.

Places like Tech Spot / Tech Deals etc don't use the GTA V benchmark, I seem to remember it doesn't give an accurate picture of actual frame rate compared to being in game, probably like most benchmarks.



Source: TechSpot

 

[RavenXXX2]

Who the **** is buying an 8400 for £250+? even at £150 the 2600 all the way, 6 threads are measly these days.

 

[chrcoluk]

good business then! it is the latest after all i suppose but is the performance improvement worth the premium some people wont be bothered they just want shiny new stuff/upgrade itch i'm sure if i had lots of spare cash and was upgrading i would look at it it no doubt as like you say its the best seller so why wouldn't i we are creatures of habit but its not like the old days when an upgrade felt like an upgrade,i remember going from an amd 850mhz thunderbird then 12 months later upgrading to an athlon xp 1800+ 1.53ghz "takes off rose tinted glasses lol"

Paying £200 for a cpu every year is just as bad as paying £600 for every 4 years in my opinion, your scenario is actually probably worse. CPUs that only get a bit faster every year is good for the consumer, their stuff doesnt age as fast.

 

[chrcoluk]

Who the **** is buying an 8400 for £250+? even at £150 the 2600 all the way, 6 threads are measly these days.

Over 90% of steam gamers have 4 threads or less, most of the rest of the 10% have 8 threads, and 6 threads is only 2 less then that. I certainly dont consider my 6/6 8600k measly.

 

[chrcoluk]

You understand nothing as you didn't even enquire what resolution I'm at. As I'm at 4K, the 2700X is a great chip FULL STOP! A 9900k would be an absolutely pointless 'sidegrade' for me and a complete waste of money. In fact, my 2700X truly is amazing, as it can keep pace with a CPU that's twice the price!

The thing is, the 2700X isnt the most optimal either, the 2600 is the best value ryzen2 chip in my opinion. Will give almost same gaming performance as the 2700X.

I think best value chips from intel and AMD in recent months has been 8600k for intel (before the price rampage) and 2600 from AMD.

 

[~>Dg<~]

the intel 8400 isnt in stock thats why people are charging 250 for those that have in stock many will though then its 150. so many skewered tests lol. the 8400 is faster tested them side by side.

 

[chrcoluk]

£60 for a box is a horrible deal.

The 3 vs 1 year warranty I see as irrelevant. It's a CPU, if it's not dead on arrival what's going to go wrong with it.

AMD also has a pretentious box but you don't get an option which makes it clear you're paying the price of a lesser CPU for the privilege.

Exactly.

The only potential issue would be if somehow the pins are damaged for the secondary dimm slots should you start off with 2 dimms and maybe 2 years down the line add another 2 it could potentially be noticed late, but just test all the dimm slots when you buy it to avoid that situation.

The warranty period is really valued high on here, but for most PC components if its not DOA or at least lasts a few months (for mechanical parts) you golden.

 

[Legend]

to you its wasting money to others it isnt. just dont try and make others purchases a big deal. we use our chips just like you do. yet cause we may pay more its a waste ?

Nope. It IS a waste if you pay more for something and get no benefit from it. That's the definition of waste. Unless you're factoring in your enjoyment of owning something so expensive as a benefit, which is fine (albeit strange), but I am only speaking to the performance because that's easily quantified. Someone's satisfaction level at owning something is not, but of course, if it excites you to spend £600 on a CPU that performs the same at 4K as one half the price, you go for it!

At 1080p, yes, there is a clear lead for the 9900K, and as I've highlighted before, if your ONLY concern is 1080p gaming at the highest possible FPS, and money and value are both of no issue, then sure, the 9900k would be the way to go. I have never disputed that and nor has anyone else, you don't need to keep saying it!

You haven't stated what resolution you play at, so I don't know where you are on this spectrum.

i have numerous rigs. not just one for all. the reason is. i want the best for each purpose. its not overkill for 1080. its just the fastest at 1080. i have a 7900x and play at 1080. thats even worse in your eyes. . yet it gives me what i want. performance. you cant game at 4k and keep the fps like 1080. thats why people buy to you overkill cpus. cause they want the highest fps for modern monitors. 4k you just arent keeping the same fps regardless of what you spend at the euipment just isnt available yet to do so in modern games. so you use a lower resolution. its a shame you just cant accept people will buy and be happy. the price isnt that dear like said i have a £1000 cpu for 1080 what does £600 do ? it doesnt matter. no one is saying amd is bad. great bargin chips. they just not as fast at what we talking about. which is upper end gaming. not it will do gaming.

Well done for having numerous rigs... most people don't. I don't have space for it, even though money wouldn't be an issue. I don't game at 1080p... it's too low a resolution to work at and high FPS doesn't do that much for me in the games that I play... 1440p UW would be my preferred set-up, but I have gone 4K for work reasons and productivity. Not that this is really relevant to anything, but it's why the 2700X makes perfect sense to me. I would get ZERO benefit from a 9900K.

gibbo has said the chips are flying out. so its obvious its not a waste and they are popular.

I don't even know where to start with that nonsense. It just makes no sense. How the chips are selling doesn't mean a thing in relation to how much of a waste they are when it comes to performance metrics at certain resolutions. What a ridiculous thing to say.

if you want the best bang for buck newish cpu its the intel 8400 . £150 quicker than any amd chip period at games.
if you want a great gaming chip but strong multi side for reasonable amount the 2700x is a good shout. just dont expect absolute performance. its 20/30 fps down on other intel chips. thats what you save money for though. some are happy with that .

Where is an Intel 8400 £150?? Your thinking is correct though... if you want a fast 1080p gaming rig, you get a cheap CPU, not a £600 one. I've said that all along. As for a 2700X not offering absolute performance, it does at 4K and that's my other point... it's neck and neck with a 9900K at that resolution for half the price. So even if money is no object, that extra money is literally going nowhere in respect to performance benefit... hence WASTE!

 

[Legend]

The thing is, the 2700X isnt the most optimal either, the 2600 is the best value ryzen2 chip in my opinion. Will give almost same gaming performance as the 2700X.

I think best value chips from intel and AMD in recent months has been 8600k for intel (before the price rampage) and 2600 from AMD.

That's valid... I did get mine on the MM for a good price, but if I was buying new, I wouldn't say the 2700X was necessarily the best value. Depends exactly what tasks you're doing though, as the 2700X does pull ahead of the 2600 in certain areas, so it's all about priorities I guess and what you're using it for day to day.

 

[Nelly]

the intel 8400 isnt in stock thats why people are charging 250 for those that have in stock many will though then its 150. so many skewered tests lol. the 8400 is faster tested them side by side.

Yet you never back anything up with a credible source or your very own testing. Come back when you can, otherwise your words are absolutely meaningless.

 

[Gibbo]

the intel 8400 isnt in stock thats why people are charging 250 for those that have in stock many will though then its 150. so many skewered tests lol. the 8400 is faster tested them side by side.

We have every single 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th gen CPU in stock, the 8400 is no longer good value but we have ample in stock and were generally the cheapest too:

Intel Core i5-8400 2.8GHz (Coffee Lake) Socket LGA1151 Processor - Retail @ £239.99 inc VAT https://www.overclockers.co.uk/Inte...ocket-LGA1151-Processor-Retail-CP-63U-IN.html



BX80684I58400, Hex Core, 2.80GHz clock speed, 14nm Process, 9MB L3 Cache, Dual Channel DDR4 Controller, Integrated DX12 Graphics, 3 Year Warranty



Only £239.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW

 

[Sc00p007]

Although 4k performance today is the same, and i agree that if you only game at 4k then the 2700x is a no brainer for value. It may not be such a big difference as i read being described.
2700x cant reach the same high framerates as the 9900k. When the high end gamers start picking up 4k 120hz+ screens over the next year or two and a couple more gpu generations, we may see the 9900k start to pull ahead even at 4k.
Im not saying this makes it worth it, or that it is even anywhere near a good idea for the budget minded, but it wont always be the case that the two chips match each other at 4k.

 

[Legend]

Although 4k performance today is the same, and i agree that if you only game at 4k then the 2700x is a no brainer for value. It may not be such a big difference as i read being described.
2700x cant reach the same high framerates as the 9900k. When the high end gamers start picking up 4k 120hz+ screens over the next year or two and a couple more gpu generations, we may see the 9900k start to pull ahead even at 4k.
Im not saying this makes it worth it, or that it is even anywhere near a good idea for the budget minded, but it wont always be the case that the two chips match each other at 4k.

It's not just a no brainer for value at 4K, it's a no brainer at 4K period. The 9900K offers nothing more of note at that resolution. In a couple of years, those people making an argument for the 9900K today won't be interested in it, as something faster will have come along. The 9900K will be a boring relic to them by then. So why spend twice what you have to today for no real benefit?

At 1080p, if you simply MUST have the highest possible frame rates at any cost, don't care about value and have the money to burn, the 9900K is the obvious choice. But this thread is about pricing, and no one can argue that its pricing makes sense in the grand scheme of things, even if you want max FPS at 1080p and can afford it (which is irrelevant to pricing in and of itself). You just have to be honest, submit, bend over and let Intel have their way with you. It's rather odd how some people do this with a smile on their face or pretend like it's something different, as though the size of their bank balance alters reality. Someone's personal financial situation really doesn't come in to the equation when discussing the inherent pricing of an item, it just doesn't. That's a personal thing and each to their own, but many purchasers do seem to feel the need to justify and vindicate that pricing, simply because that amount of money doesn't mean anything to them. Completely missing the point.

For those people who are at 1080p and enter in to a 9900k purchase with ALL the facts, in full knowledge of the poor value and exorbitant price, there is no problem. Eyes wide open and all that. The puzzling thing is how some people appear to be deluding themselves as to what they've actually bought and the real world benefit it brings, more so if they're at higher resolutions... it's quite evident some people just wanted it for the sake of it and either didn't realise its true performance merit (or lack thereof), or are in denial about it.

I also don't think it's necessarily a healthy thing for the industry as a whole (other than retailers and Intel shareholders), nor does it bode well for future pricing... I mean, do these people WANT to keep paying such high prices purely for the sake of it? It's all well and good saying you can easily afford it, but you have to be incredibly selfish and short sighted, or just ignorant, to not see the potential damage that could result in the long term. I'm sure most people don't care, but it's something that should be considered. After all, we're enthusiasts, not rich aristocratic collectors of expensive things... well, most of us are.

More to the point, and arguably the most important thing to state, is that there will be a lot of people out there buying a 9900K for use at 4K, under the mistaken belief they are getting far superior performance over a CPU which is half the price... that's probably quite a logical assumption on the surface of things after all. Threads like this that discuss pricing should absolutely set out to make those people aware of the reality though. All this talk of "I can afford it, I want it, don't tell me what to do" is puerile and not at all helpful to anyone.

 

[Sc00p007]

I think that this thread already makes it very clear, a long with nearly all reviews. I was just adding a little balance as it isnt as simple as its the same at 4k today so it will always be. What i say is true, and for a thread about pricing its best to know all the variables. That little benefit i showed for future 4k may be useful for people who know the chip isnt valued well for them, but are close. It doesnt make it a much better proposition, but i feel it important to know.

 

[B1gbeard]

I'm still boggled by the fact that people can't see why someone would buy the 9900k regardless of the price of it's competitor. It's not like it's any different to other markets. If in any consumer market we all bought the same thing, well, there wouldn't be much of a market. Why are cars that offer the same general performance priced differently, or TV's, washing machines? It's how consumer products have been since the dawn of time and some people seemed to have only just noticed. I wonder how they react to other consumer market pricing as unless you are bang on the money in everything you buy, it's pretty hypocritical.

It should also be pointed out that the 9900k wins by quite a bit at 1440p in some games and in productivity tasks too right?

It's also easy for even a novice to get the right information. Searching Youtube for Intel 9900k you get the reviews giving you the lowdown at the top. If you can find a video telling you the 9900k is the bee's knees at everything then you can also find the sensible reviews.