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

[tamzzy]

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.

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)

yep, noted already

 

[~>Dg<~]

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.

the problem with this is rarely as this ever happened in gaming. 7700k for eg still out performed ryzen one chips across the board. yet same arguement would be made. highly clocked it would probably still be some of the new amd chips in some games. this is why look at what you do and just try and make a educated guess. none of the current amd cpus will beat a 9700k or 9900k in games for most peoples years of ownership .

this forum is pro amd or..the most often posts made are by pro amd people any way so its just the same ol story. the new amd cpus are great but for gaming they arent as fast as a 9700k or 9900k. this has been proven. numerous times. that doesnt make amd cpus a bad choice its just the truth.

you can literally build like for like 9700k vs a 3700x for same price. for about £50 more a 9900k. its just down to what you think works best for you. you being the main thing. its preference. everyones is different.

 

[humbug]

good thing we have the 3700x

Indeed

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.

Well clearly not, the 3600/X is 10% slower in games than the 8700K and the same in productivity.

Same with the 3700X, about 10% slower in games than the 9900K, similar in productivity.

The Ryzen CPU's are a lot cheaper than the Intel equivalents.

The 3900X is outside of that box, it's actually equivalent to an i9 9920X which is a £1400 CPU.

 

[smilingcrow]

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.

I’m not arguing that Ryzen 3 series is too expensive, just that on release it looks very poor value compared to some of the 2 series. The 1 series are still available so who knows how long the situation with 2 series pricing will continue.

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.

Do we even know if the 2 series are discontinued and if so how much stock is in the channels?
It doesn’t really matter as I was talking about the PRICE on RELEASE where my argument still stands.
Cars do get discounted prior to a new model but that is for a much shorter period and by a much smaller amount.

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.

Has anybody actually suggested that though! Weak defensive; think before typing.
I don’t care what price they release a new platform at, but if they slash prices of the old so that the older one offers much better performance per buck something seems off to me.
Maybe they have too much stock and they realise that there are a lot of people who treat CPUs like fashion accessories so are afraid to be seen with last year’s model.
That’s consumerism for you.

 

[humbug]

Has anybody actually suggested that though! Weak defensive; think before typing.
I don’t care what price they release a new platform at, but if they slash prices of the old so that the older one offers much better performance per buck something seems off to me.
Maybe they have too much stock and they realise that there are a lot of people who treat CPUs like fashion accessories so are afraid to be seen with last year’s model.
That’s consumerism for you.

What you said was this.

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.

That looks to me like you're comparing new release prices to out going cut prices.

To get some clarity from you then i'll ask this question, do you believe AMD's cut pricing of its outgoing products should dictate the pricing of the new incoming products?

 

[muon]

To get some clarity from you then i'll ask this question, do you believe AMD's cut pricing of its outgoing products should dictate the pricing of the new incoming products?

Which doesn't even make sense as the only reason they were cut was that people would still but them rather than just getting the 3xxx chips. Obviously they cut them to a point which left them attractive.

 

[humbug]

Which doesn't even make sense as the only reason they were cut was that people would still but them rather than just getting the 3xxx chips. Obviously they cut them to a point which left them attractive.

Yes.

 

[muon]

The reason Intel doesn't do this as much is because they change sockets every other second and so the new chips don't necessarily compete against chips in an older socket.

 

[humbug]

The reason Intel doesn't do this as much is because they change sockets every other second and so the new chips don't necessarily compete against chips in an older socket.

Deliberately, is the only think that's missing from that

The other thing is Intel rarely give you a "next generation product" that's any better, or even different to the last, they have only done it twice in the last decade, 4790K vs 6700K and 7700K vs 8700K, in-between Ivy Bridge was Sandy Bridge on a node shrink, Haswell was Ivy Bridge Rehashed, Devils Canyon was Haswell Rehashed, 6700K = 7700K, the 8700K is a better CPU than the 9700K and the 9900K is much like an entry level Intel HEDT for entry level Intel HEDT money.

So with most of Intel's generational CPU's being the same as the last who would buy the new one if the same older one is a lot cheaper? having said that they still don't do discounts on out going generations at all, maybe that's why so many Intel users are so confused when AMD do it?

 

[~>Dg<~]

the thing is most people only do one socket change per upgrade. realistically most people even on amd will buy one cpu and mobo then change the lot again when its upgrade time.

 

[PC777]

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.

This is one of those the truth hurts posts, I got a 9600K on impulse without doing research in a seemingly great value bundle last November that meant I only paid about £200 for it, but I hoped it would last as long as my i5 760 that I got 7 years of use for £150. Now with all these great new AMD cpus it's definitely taken the shine off and I kind of agree the 8700K looks like a better value long term option than even the 9700K, at £330 for an 8700K right now on OCUK looks like way better value than my 9600K even though it's still quite pricey. Half thinking of getting that as they work in z390 boards too I think and selling my 9600K, but then I'd have spent £500+ on CPUs and could have got a 3900X at less than that price! At this stage I just want to squeeze what I can out of this 9600K for a few years if I can.

I'm still playing on 1080p 60 fps with a 1060 6GB which is running everything great, but I want to upgrade from my old monitor to 1440p and maybe 120 fps and likely get a new card at the same time, like the RTX 3060 or whatever it is when it comes out. Then after 3 -4 years do my research and get whatever likely AMD chip is the best mid to high range in 2022 or so, probably at least 12 core 24 thread.

Given what you said, and I'm that I'm keeping the 9600K in the short term, should I just stay 1080 60fps for a few more years too? Would like another upgrade to take some sting off but not if it'll make things even worse.

 

[Rroff]

the thing is most people only do one socket change per upgrade. realistically most people even on amd will buy one cpu and mobo then change the lot again when its upgrade time.

Socket/chipset changes have never bothered me personally - by the time I've changed CPUs significantly it is high time the motherboard was replaced to ensure reliable operation anyhow - if for no other reason than newer standards like USB3 support, etc.

 

[ljt]

the thing is most people only do one socket change per upgrade. realistically most people even on amd will buy one cpu and mobo then change the lot again when its upgrade time.

To be fair, that's because intel dominated market share and it generally meant you had no choice but to change the motherboard if you wanted a new CPU come upgrade time.

At least now with AMD you have a choice to keep your existing motherboard and save some cash or put it towards something else in the system instead.

It's what I did, I went from 1st gen to 3rd gen ryzen without having to buy a motherboard, which was great. Someone could have bought a 1st gen ryzen and could potentially put 4th gen in come next year without having to change the motherboard, that's great news for consumers - why spend money when you really don't need to?

 

[humbug]

This is one of those the truth hurts posts, I got a 9600K on impulse without doing research in a seemingly great value bundle last November that meant I only paid about £200 for it, but I hoped it would last as long as my i5 760 that I got 7 years of use for £150. Now with all these great new AMD cpus it's definitely taken the shine off and I kind of agree the 8700K looks like a better value long term option than even the 9700K, at £330 for an 8700K right now on OCUK looks like way better value than my 9600K even though it's still quite pricey. Half thinking of getting that as they work in z390 boards too I think and selling my 9600K, but then I'd have spent £500+ on CPUs and could have got a 3900X at less than that price! At this stage I just want to squeeze what I can out of this 9600K for a few years if I can.

I'm still playing on 1080p 60 fps with a 1060 6GB which is running everything great, but I want to upgrade from my old monitor to 1440p and maybe 120 fps and likely get a new card at the same time, like the RTX 3060 or whatever it is when it comes out. Then after 3 -4 years do my research and get whatever likely AMD chip is the best mid to high range in 2022 or so, probably at least 12 core 24 thread.

Given what you said, and I'm that I'm keeping the 9600K in the short term, should I just stay 1080 60fps for a few more years too? Would like another upgrade to take some sting off but not if it'll make things even worse.

Oh it will be fine on a GTX 1060, and for some time yet, right now the 9600K gets thrashed in some games when running a stupidly unbalanced system, like they do in reviews, if you're not going to be running a 2080TI level GPU for a few years it's not going to be a problem.

I'm simply talking in terms for when CPU's are pushed for all they are worth, which is the point of reviews, it's a "worst case scenario" one that for almost anyone is unrealistic.

 

[nomadd]

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)

I upgraded a Dell PC many years ago from a 386 to a 486. The processor came on a little daughter/riser card, so you could move between generations. That 486 on a little PCB cost £450 (inc. VAT) if I remember rightly. And this was back in the days when you could buy a detached house in London for £150k..

And fast forward 10 years to 1999 (ah, poor Prince..): Intel has priced it's new 600-MHz Pentium III chip at $669; AMD's 600-MHz Athlon chip costs $615.

You see, son, we old-timers had to pay a lot for our PC gaming habits back in the day. It's why I had to leave your mother..

 

[smilingcrow]

That looks to me like you're comparing new release prices to out going cut prices.
To get some clarity from you then i'll ask this question, do you believe AMD's cut pricing of its outgoing products should dictate the pricing of the new incoming products?

You are overthinking it.
What I am saying is that once the Ryzen 3 pricing was released, those looking for best value and good enough performance were better off buying Ryzen 2 and still are in some cases.
This is an enthusiast forum where members frequently have a different agenda, so they often chase performance at the expense of value or power efficiency. Even to the extent where they will accept paying from 25 to over 100% more in terms of value and/or efficiency.
From the mainstream perspective things are very different and over paying in that way is less acceptable.
This doesn't undermine the Zen 2 pricing, but it does make the Ryzen 2700 deals at ~£160 very appealing for the mainstream.
The 3900 is also a steal at ~£500, but that's deep into enthusiast territory again so has no relevance for the mainstream.
The recent and current R2600 deals are also a steal around £110. Plus you can drop them into a cheap board with no BIOS issues to think about which is also more important for the mainstream.

 

[tamzzy]

I upgraded a Dell PC many years ago from a 386 to a 486. The processor came on a little daughter/riser card, so you could move between generations. That 486 on a little PCB cost £450 (inc. VAT) if I remember rightly. And this was back in the days when you could buy a detached house in London for £150k..
And fast forward 10 years to 1999 (ah, poor Prince..): Intel has priced it's new 600-MHz Pentium III chip at $669; AMD's 600-MHz Athlon chip costs $615.
You see, son, we old-timers had to pay a lot for our PC gaming habits back in the day. It's why I had to leave your mother..

loooooool... yeah i remember my dad buying a pentium 133 computer back in 1995/6-ish?
my mom nearly had a fit

 

[humbug]

You are overthinking it.
What I am saying is that once the Ryzen 3 pricing was released, those looking for best value and good enough performance were better off buying Ryzen 2 and still are in some cases.
This is an enthusiast forum where members frequently have a different agenda, so they often chase performance at the expense of value or power efficiency. Even to the extent where they will accept paying from 25 to over 100% more in terms of value and/or efficiency.
From the mainstream perspective things are very different and over paying in that way is less acceptable.
This doesn't undermine the Zen 2 pricing, but it does make the Ryzen 2700 deals at ~£160 very appealing for the mainstream.
The 3900 is also a steal at ~£500, but that's deep into enthusiast territory again so has no relevance for the mainstream.
The recent and current R2600 deals are also a steal around £110. Plus you can drop them into a cheap board with no BIOS issues to think about which is also more important for the mainstream.

Right now i think Intel are a bit in no mans land not really sure anymore where they stand.

AMD are liberally competing with themselves, looking at those who publish data for CPU sales the 2600 is still "the best selling CPU", so yes that's the value option covered, the 3700X is right behind it with the 3600 behind that, still "value options" ? At least with the initial stock, before they ran out, and according to 8 Pack the best selling CPU of the lot was the 3900X, the most expensive of the bunch.

It seems to me people like the value of Ryzen, both 3000 and 2000 still, as you pointed out, but the E-Peen option is not the 9900K, it's the 3900X. i think that proves, contrary to common belief enthusiast E-Peen is not necessarily about the highest outright FPS, it's about having the most "bad ass" CPU, which the 3900X certainly is, it's a monster of a CPU.

 

[smilingcrow]

AMD are liberally competing with themselves.

Yes and I assume you meant literally or you are making a more nuanced point.
I am surprised that the gulf between the cheapest 6 and 8 core 2 series and 3 series is so high in the marketplace.
But this is a limited opportunity and the old chips will slowly disappear and the 3 series may get a reduction then normality will ensue.
It's a great position to be in, competing with yourself.

 

[humbug]

I wish it was a nuanced point but no, just a mistake, spellchecker corrected it without looking properly.