You dont really need an X570 board, you can get a B450 Carbon AC for £124.99 and be set.
-
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.
Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
true.
depends on end-user appetite for bios updating (i know it's simple and all that...but only a minority will want to attempt it)
Caporegime
Right exactly.
Even with X570 whats wrong with this at £210? https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...4-x570-chipset-atx-motherboard-mb-57w-gi.html
Or even this at £183 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...4-x570-chipset-atx-motherboard-mb-57x-gi.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,565
Why would you get an X570 for £240 when you can get exactly the same performance from a B450 Tomahawk for £100?
Caporegime
Also the Core i9 9900K needs a £20 to £30 cooler to run it at stock.
Soldato
And not to mention the £405 is not long term price! It's a special price. The average/going rate is still £480.
Still cant believe people are trying to say AMD should release CPU at the last gen current price. Makes zero sense.
AMD have been consistent with same release prices every gen of Ryzen. Intel on other hand kept creeping those prices up every gen and nobody batted am eyelid for a decade.
Still cant believe people are trying to say AMD should release CPU at the last gen current price. Makes zero sense.
AMD have been consistent with same release prices every gen of Ryzen. Intel on other hand kept creeping those prices up every gen and nobody batted am eyelid for a decade.
Caporegime
It wouldn't run at anything past 3.6Ghz with a cooler like that, so no 4.7Ghz all core boosts or 5Ghz all core boosts depending on the motherboard, in which case it will be a lot slower than a 3700X with it's box cooler, to get the performance you see in reviews out of the 9900K you need a £120 AIO minimum.
i think it's more because of £:$ tanking than anything else
just comparing the i7 series (yes i know there is the 9900k, but that takes the product stack up, just like the ryzen 9 3900x/3950x) -
3770k: $342 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-3770k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz.html
4770k: $339-350 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-4770k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz.html
6700k: $339 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-6700k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-20-ghz.html
7700k: $339-350 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-7700k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-50-ghz.html
8700k: $359-370 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...8700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz.html
9700k: $374-385 https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html
Caporegime
So Curlyriff was right. 7700K more expensive than the 6700K, 8700K more expensive than the 7700K, 9700K more expensive than the 8700K despite the fact that the 8700K IS A BETTER CPU, and the 9900K more expensive than all of them.
Caporegime
I think the best high performance CPU Intel made when looking at what you get for your money, was the 8700K, i rate that CPU quite highly even though it was still a bit too expensive in my view, the rest are just plain overpriced.... especially 'today' the 9900K.
oh dear lord, if a difference of ~$40 and not yet accounting for inflation is such a big deal...then yes, on the surface of things, you can say curlyriff is right. but however i respectfully disagree.
the 8700k is a 6c smt part, the 9700k is an 8c non-smt part. i wouldn't call either better nor worse - more of a side step. 9700k is better for gaming (physical > logical cores). 8700k would be better for some productivity tasks that can harness smt (with all intel's smt flaws...lol)
agree
i just feel that pc 'gaming' components are horribly priced today...as it seems to be moving up product stacks, rather than having new products inserted at current price stacks.
amd included. i'm sure if intel had been competitive, the 3900x would've been the 16c part, 3800x would've been the 12c part etc.
not that i'm saying that the current amd lineup isn't better value for money than intel...it certainly is.
amd are just happy to slot in the gaps intel has made...and it shows (not that i'd bemoan a capitalist company making a profit...i'd buy a product if i think it offers value for me)
Caporegime
The 9600K stutters like a skateboard down a flight of stairs in a couple AAA titles at 1080P on an RTX 2080TI, i know one might say that's an unreasonable setup but when talking about longevity it's not, it's going the same way all the other i5's have, the 7700K isn't quite there yet, why? SMT.
The 9700K, a £380 CPU has two more cores, threads, 8 of them, the 8700K will outlive the 9700K as useful high end gaming CPU, hell my 3600 will outlive the 9700K.
The 8700K was and still is a very good CPU, the 9700K already isn't.
Intel, as always give you "just enough" on the day just one step below the highest end, the 8700K was the only exception to that rule.
The 9700K, a £380 CPU has two more cores, threads, 8 of them, the 8700K will outlive the 9700K as useful high end gaming CPU, hell my 3600 will outlive the 9700K.
The 8700K was and still is a very good CPU, the 9700K already isn't.
Intel, as always give you "just enough" on the day just one step below the highest end, the 8700K was the only exception to that rule.
8600k and 9600k was DOA when there was/is the 2600/x.
agreed...if we look towards the future, i suspect that your assumption may probably turn out to be correct
again i disagree, currently the 9700k is faster (albeit slightly) for current games. as above, i agree that due to smt, 8700k may probably turn out to be the better choice.
saying the 9700k "already isn't", is applying a heavy dose of bias. but would i buy a 9700k over a 3700x? hell no.
intel was always about the #milking
Caporegime
Different perspectives i guess, despite the 9700K getting a few more FPS in games given those two the only choices at the same price i would go for the 8700K, it would give me piece of mind where as with the 9700K i'd be sat waiting for it to start behaving like a 9600K.
Kinda disagree. I think it's more that people tend to think they need the "top end". I'm more in agreement with Jesus Steve of GN: "If you are just into gaming, buy the 3600. Period."
£100 mobo, £188 CPU (includes cooler), £80 for 16GB PC3200 RAM and £110 for Samsung NVMe 512MB. That's an brilliant set-up for gaming, for peanuts, comparatively speaking.
OK, GPUs are a kick in the nuts, but stick to older gen and 1080p to 1440p and you'll be fine.
I personally think 9700K/9900K and 3700X/3800X/3900X are vastly overpriced for what little improvement they offer in gaming. But each to their own, I guess.
Soldato
If you were upgrading the chances are you'd have a cpu cooler anyway but even so there's very little difference in price between the two platforms.
good thing we have the 3700x
in isolation, yes, i agree. back then one could also get away with the 2500k/3570k which was a £150 cpu - so it's not too far different, "if you are just into gaming"
however the "top-end" (not accounting for HEDT components) used to be £250-300, xx80 GPU used to be £500-ish, at 2012 prices
contrast to now, where "top-end" is £480 for the cpu (9900k/3900x), GPU £1000-1200.
upgrading is a totally different kettle of fish, which i didn't look into due to the multitude of variations that can occur
Soldato
good thing we have the 3700x
in isolation, yes, i agree. back then one could also get away with the 2500k/3570k which was a £150 cpu - so it's not too far different, "if you are just into gaming"
however the "top-end" (not accounting for HEDT components) used to be £250-300, xx80 GPU used to be £500-ish, at 2012 prices
contrast to now, where "top-end" is £480 for the cpu (9900k/3900x), GPU £1000-1200.
upgrading is a totally different kettle of fish, which i didn't look into due to the multitude of variations that can occur
The point is AMD isn't a massive value proposition that it may have once been, they've raised their prices to fill the boots Intel once occupied.