Intel Core i9-9900k 8c/16t, i7-9700K 8c/8t, i7-9600k 6c/6t 2nd Gen Coffee Lake CPU's + Z390

Intel 9900K retail box version for $500.79 (no taxes in a lot of states) from Provantage. I've used them in the past for many purchases and they've always been great. Drop shipment company, so they cut out some of the overhead costs sometimes.

Only $12 more than the $488 suggested retail price or whatever that price was.

https://www.provantage.com/service/searchsvcs?QUERY=9900k&SUBMIT.x=0&SUBMIT.y=0

 

Yep, and 8700K has a lot of overclocking headroom in comparison to 2700X, therefore further widening the gaming performance difference between 8700K and 2700X. Comparing overclocked 8700K vs overclocked 2700X = an even bigger win for the 8700K.

 

I wonder how long that will last at that price, or if it will sell out of stock mostly...many others listings I have seen have settled on around $528 as the price... at least for now while the 9900k is not actually available for sale, pre-order only.

Oddly that site has the boxed Retail version (fancy dodecahedron box ?) cheaper by a few bucks than the OEM "Tray" version:

 

Do Intel's lies, deceptions, and idiotic childish behavior slowly melt away in your eyes, the further the CPU overclocks?

At what point does the Overclocking cleanse Intel's evil away? When the Overclock finally bricks the CPU as the karmic cycle completes?

 

It's still not clear to me if either Intel benchmark publication had XFR2 / MCE enabled during their runs, hopefully that will be made clear.

Gathering base info on stock for both, without automatic MCE / XFR2 additional performance, is a good idea to know what most people that never OC or tune will get.

It's funny how many people I've talked with with K / HK CPU's that don't overclock. The HK CPU's that clocked lower than the non-HK CPU's actually perform worse at stock.

The difference in FPS isn't really going to be noticeable anyway at the high frame rates, but it's nice to know that for sure by seeing the graphs for stock, XFR / MCE boosted, and manually OC'd.

The resulting 10% average improvement in FPS from 8700k vs 2700x isn't going to be noticeable by the user.

The 9900k won't be much if at all higher for games that don't scale via more cores.

Those small differences are all in the noise at the high frame rates, so really either CPU is comparable, except for the extra cost and associated socially unacceptable behavior of Intel with the 9900k.

The 2700x is still the best price / performance choice. With the 8c/16t 1st generation Ryzen CPU's 1800x / 1800 / 1700x / 1700 even less expensive.

 

Right now the 2080 Ti in BF1 cannot be fully maxed out at 1440p by either my 8700K at 5.0Ghz nor a Ryzen 2700X. The CPUs just can't feed the 2080 Ti fast enough. I am seeing less than 99-100% utilization at 1440p ultra quite regularly, and I've read comments that GPU utilization is even worse on Ryzen in BF1 mutliplayer. Single player is a different story.

I'm hoping the 9900K will solve that issue, but I have doubts even it will be hare horsepower. Either way I'll know soon enough.

 

It will be interesting to see the results of $9900k-$8700k + $2080ti-$1080ti = Cost, and the resulting Cost / FPS-increase per game chart.

Both used value of sold parts and paid price cost plots, with $dollars per single FPS increase and fractions of FPS per $dollar.

Meet the Head of Testing at Principled Technologies: Lyle
Bitwit
Published on Oct 14, 2018
Recently discovered footage gives an inside look at the flawed testing methodologies that were used to create the original Intel-commissioned test report (ft. the Intel Core i9-9900K & AMD Ryzen 7 2700X) conducted by Principled Technologies

Spoiler: Disclaimer...

------------------------
THIS IS A PARODY. As mentioned in the video, Principled Technologies has rerun their original tests with more technically sound methods before publishing the data. We commend them for their honest efforts to bring the community fair and accurate information.

CPU Pricing Update, Ryzen More Affordable Than Ever, Intel Faces Pricing Pain
Hardware Unboxed
Published on Oct 15, 2018

Spoiler: Click to See Video

CPU Pricing Update October 2018, AMD Destroys Intel For Value

 

So, at minimum, 100MHz works out to around 2.5%. Here is a video, and I want you to pay careful attention to the performance of stock vs overclock for this specific group of reviewers. Notice anything, like more than a 2.5% increase when overclocked? (Their charts in Blender and Handbrake are at around 6%, with BF1 being closer to 8%)


Stop seeing what you want. If you aren't clear on their methodology, they have many reviews that were done by Steve Walton at Tech Spot (the main guy on Hardware Unboxed) or you can wait 4 days and watch your perceptions get dashed.

There are many things that play into Tim's comments in this video, such as gaming above 1080p showing less scaling, games not being able to fully utilize more than 6 cores in many cases, etc. So, more likely than not, many reviews are going to show the 9900K is bad value. That is just about fact at this point. And, I just found out AMD cut the cost of the 2700X to $295. Even going at my first stack by percentage, that puts $390 at the value cap, with over $400 looking less appetizing, rather than the previous $380-420. Above 30% over the 2700X, that value of additional performance falls off a cliff. By the time you reach $520, you are now at around 70% additional cost for maybe 16-20% additional performance. Even taking into account the frequency performance and IPC advantage, the value isn't there for most consumers even with the higher single thread and lightly multi-threaded advantage (I weigh that at about a 10-15% premium over the heavy multithreaded performance, which is given parity to its worth, so 16% is a 16% premium, 20% is 20%, plus the 10-15% for the single and lightly multi-threaded workloads). There is wiggle room around the number, but not enough for a 70% increase in cost (50% premium).

Now, I do separate out the higher tier offerings from lower in the stack, so please don't come with the tired response of "if you want value, then see, you should be getting that Athlon chip or the celeron or 8400 from Intel." Just stop and look at what is being said and compared, and what has been compared this entire time. In fact, since I gave how I apply my value, you can take whatever percentage the 9900K is seen to be over the 2700X, slap an extra 10-15% on it for the frequency and IPC advantage, and you will have the price I think is fair for the chip and at what point I would recommend the CPU. This isn't that difficult to get what I am saying.

 

Are you talking about the Battlefield One 1% lows? Those aren't the average FPS, they're the lows. Not even remotely similar or comparable. But this is a great video indeed. Shows the OC 2700X and 8700K showing a 21% difference in 1% lows, which is huge. I think I'll notice a 21% difference in my lows. That leads to stutter in games. If the 8700K is that far ahead, the 9900K will likely be even further ahead.

Nobody here is arguing about price value of the 9900K at all. It's overpriced I agree, but most enthusiast don't buy the top tier chip for it's price to performance value, they buy the mid tier chip for that. Ryzen is a great option, but there are better options for best overall performance and best gaming performance, you just have to pay for it. The prices will likely drop and normalize after initial demand drops off and supply issues are corrected. No real surprises here.

 

You seem to miss the point. People love to think they are "enthusiasts" when they are NOT. If you are a reviewer, if you are a competitive benchmarker, if you are a person that has a need like that, yes, get the chip out of necessity. That point was made clear by buildzoid, which complained that buying the 2700X would mean he couldn't get a motherboard to review (he is a content creator, so that is part of his cost), but that the 9900K had zero value and he would prefer not to even consider buying it because that is multiple motherboards and he would lose out on content for his channel. I consider him as both a content creator AND an enthusiast, and he can even understand the value isn't there.

I showed through the math that you use to find your benefit. In fact, any user should take multiple trusted reviewers data, excerpt only the relevant data for their use case (which games they play because they likely don't play all games and which programs they use as they don't use all programs), then weight their use case by percent of time of usage, and compare the market competitors (so likely the 8700K, 9700K, 9900K, and 2700 and 2700X), using the numbers for how they would setup their rig (overclocked or stock) to find the percentage increase of one to the others. Then, you take the lowest cost processor, or the main one considered aside from the top one, then run the math on what percentage over that lower cost one you are considering compared to the increase in performance. You do this separately for each reviewer due to variations in hardware and settings. You then do an adjustment for the programs you run that were not reviewed, which for consumers is usually single thread or light multi-thread workloads (hence my 10-15% premium for the current Intel chips) to get the value proposition. Unless the lower cost CPU is unfit for a workload (which then it should have been removed from consideration, and none of the chips mentioned are unfit for the workload), you arrive at the value proposition. This doesn't mean just going with the lowest cost alternative in the stack, it means going with the best for the purpose.

Now, as I've been stating, the 9900K blows that value proposition out of the water, and no amount of saying it is an enthusiast part, 5GHz, blah blah blah, changes the math. The reason to do a percentage of performance is so that the SMT/HT difference, the IPC difference, the frequency difference, the latency difference, is already compounded in the output data that is being used. So all of those talking points go away on both sides. This is performance at tasks. After you have that, you can look at what premium is appropriate, and this calculation is different at the HEDT and server levels, so adjustments need changed for those setups and those professionals already understand what they are weighing so no need to belabor that point.

Meanwhile, for what is known on performance and the prices of the products, Intel blew the curve and is charging premiums not seen outside of HEDT or Server side for these chips. But on those, they keep load up for production of content which generates value. For the consumer, most do not keep their machines loaded while away at work, use them occasionally, and will see small, if any, benefits other than setting that extra money on fire. This is why I give how to calculate it for yourself or anyone reading this rather than just trying to hype a product. There is a point at which the cost isn't justified, even if an enthusiast. You have to have need.

I even said the 8700K at the price premium was justified. Notice how you skip over that point to try to push the mid tier talking point, which is absurdity. The 2700X is at the high tier of mainstream. Period. You may not use the extra power for production, so those benefits don't benefit you. Doesn't make it a mid-tier product. That is absurd! Best overall performance at too high a premium means it has zero value to consumers because the cost of that performance is wasted on what could buy things with better performance for the consumer, like better ram with tighter timings, or a better graphics card, or a capture card, or etc.

 

If you intend to have your cpu +-4/5 years (many does that) and only replace parts as GPU, ssd, more ram etc it can have an value buy the best you can get in mainstream processors. And users need can change (types tasks and software). All I see in this thread now is "get whatever you want as long it's cheapest" as possible. See try sell in AMD is so obviously and I can't do other than smile

 

There I fixed it for you.

Just because it has no value to you, or to an AMD youtube creator doens't mean it has no value to other people. ....Ferrari 812s shouldn't exist because you know they're like 3.5x the cost of a Dodge SRT Demon and they're both smoking fast and that value just isn't there for any customers.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1347...gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors

Finally I can never close a chrome tab again!

 

First, which is your argument, that this is a premium product for enthusiasts or that this is for someone who intends to use the CPU 4-5 years? You seem confused on your argument. If you want to make that argument, I'd say get the 8700K or 9700K and wait for people like you to sell your 9900K in a year or two for a mid-life cycle upgrade, spend the savings to get a better MB or faster ram or a better graphics card and call it a day. Buying the 9900K used at a discount to update your platform is perfectly legit, and at that price point, the consumer is better served. So the argument doesn't hold water. The normal argument goes buying lower on the CPU stack with a view to upgrade it later on, not buying the top of the CPU stack and riding it out.

Yes, you are correct that user needs can change. Buying the CPU that drops in at a discount later makes more sense for that. Also, I never said so long as cheapest, and that is a gross mischaracterization of my point, especially when I EXPLICITLY stated that a couple posts back. Do you even read? Also, you missed my point on when I said the 8700K had value. Shows you have your own fanboy motivations. Go back and use critical reading skills, please!

You are calling Buildzoid an AMD youtube creator. That's cute! Maybe you should see what his content is before commenting. It shows you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, he uses Ryzen for some of his XOC content. He is young and that is his budget. He also uses the 14 core 7940X. He also likes 3dmark. But, that doesn't make you an AMD fanboy just because you say the value isn't there on the 9900K.

As to the Ferrari comment, sure, you can make it, doesn't mean people should buy it without a need. My point stands. The value isn't there.

Funny, there are multiple points in there, like the Intel statement citing 16GB instead of 32GB, or that this was pushed for their dual channel MBs with only dual slots, or that the original use was for laptop sodimms for mobile workstations, or that Intel is still validating, or that they may also work on AMD chips which are looser with the memory controls which may allow for support, but that nobody knows. That is very good critical reading skills on your part.

 

The way I see it, the options are pretty black and white right now:
- People that enjoy overclocking and benching and care about ranking should go with a 9900K or Intel HEDT CPU
- Value shoppers can do no wrong going with AMD and saving a few bucks on a 2700X for playing games and modest overclocking
- For most gamers, it really doesn't make a ton of difference... just get a mainstream unlocked CPU that you can buy really cheap (used 7700K, 8700K or used Ryzen) and focus your cash on the GPU

 

Not always much cheaper buy new middle end and then buy the used high end chips. + many buy one cpu for the platform and that's it. And where did I mentioned 8700K? Thread title...
Intel Core i9-9900k 8c/16t, i7-9700K 8c/8t, i7-9600k 6c/6t 2nd Gen Coffee Lake CPU's + Z390

 

That is pretty much what I have been saying. The 9900K is for reviewers and competitive overclockers (out of necessity). Few others should even look at it for that price. But, you make a great point on competitive OCing on HEDT, that Intel still has the win there.

My longer spiels were more explaining how I come to my recommendations on value, as value does not always mean budget, something some here are forgetting. I'm actually really excited to see the performance on the 8700K vs the 9700K, considering HT gives about 30% more performance and the 9700K has 33% more cores.

 

I'm buying a 9900K. Is that a problem?

 

Who said anything about Ryzen or Ryzen support? This is an Intel discussion thread last time I checked. Why are you getting hostile because someone didn't mention that Ryzen may or may not also get future support for this in an Intel thread?

 

It's your money. Do with it as you see fit. But, IMO, it is a waste unless you fall into the groups that have a need. I explained in detail how I arrive at my valuation of the product based on performance. But, ultimately, it is the purchaser that has to live with their decision, not me.

I think that before AMD dropped the price to $295, using the previous $320-330 amount, the 8700K and 9700K had good value and I would recommend them for gaming as the performance in games and other performance, plus overclocking for those here that overclock, deserved the 10-20% markup. At now 30%, that value is a little more in question, to be honest. I still would likely recommend them if the rigs primary purpose is gaming as the performance delta is there, but for a mixed workload machine, depending how much productivity activities you do, I'd say consider the 2700X, not to outright select one or the other. Back when the 8700K was under $350, it was a no brainer. The value at that point favored Intel and I would recommend the 8700K back then for almost everyone, unless the desktop was primarily doing productivity that favored AMD. Back then, the 8700K was the best value for the majority of people buying the high end mainstream platform. My analysis and recommendations change on price.

How is this so difficult for so many to understand?

 

Yes, edit your statement then say that AMD wasn't brought up in your original statement. Move on.

Edit: your original statement:

"Finally I can never close a chrome tab again! Ryzen does 64GB? Content creators rejoice! You don't have to buy high end desktop, you can get a 9900K and 128gb of RAM on Intel 9th gen. "

 

The post was edited before your response lol. In addition it was a question that I decided to remove because as I stated it's an Intel thread and not relevant to the article. Again it's an Intel thread yet here you are, crapping on any Intel news or posts at all.

 

Funny, I've talked about the value of the 9900K in my posts, said I'm excited to see the performance comparison of the 9700K vs the 8700K,etc. Discussion of capabilities of the market competitor in light of known information, so long as not cheerleading, is allowed and isn't thread crapping. I have made my point abundantly clear to any moderator that cares to read through my posts on how I am analyzing the 9900K's value.

As to your edit, it happened between going from my phone to my desktop, so I quoted those after. You said you made no mention of Ryzen or support, which is a lie before you modified your comment. You then pretended it was never said in an effort to discredit my response, when you knew what was being responded to.

 

If I was gonna be building a Gaming PC 'soon', I'd be buying the 9900K, but when the price drops some. We don't see proper unbiased reviews for 9900K yet, but I'm quite sure it'll be the best gaming CPU in terms of performance, and for high refresh rate gaming it would be unbeatable. High refresh rate gaming is my thing, so that's where I'd spend my money, and I'd want a good bit of overhead available in that CPU for the years to come to survive a couple of GPU upgrades over some generations, so I'd invest heavily in the CPU. That's why, in Nov 2016, I built a 6700K + GTX 1070 rather than a 6600K + GTX 1080 - both about the same price.

 

I understand that. At the same time, I would posit a different approach. Most games are still 6 core capped, not 8 core. Some will expand to utilize 8 cores and above soon, but it will not be for a couple years. What I would do is buy a Z390 with a beefier VRM on it, then grab an 8700K or a 9700K, depending on reviews. This will give you the best performance for the dollar in gaming at the moment. Then, over the age of the system, and since the Z390 may be compatible with 10nm products (I don't believe they will be better than the 14nm++ coffee lake or refresh CPUs according to reports, but Ice Lake at 10nm+ is supposed to be a side grade process from 14nm++, so having the potential compatibility is nice) as well as the 9900K, I would upgrade that with a used one after it has been out awhile and after more games supporting 8+ cores come to market.

This frees up like $100 that can be spread to the ram and MB budget, or thrown at the GPU budget, which could change the purchase from a 1080 to a Ti or similar. It also could be spent on grabbing a better display or peripherals as well. But, I do understand as I had a 6700K for awhile until I went to my TR HEDT build. Gaming isn't my main priority and I needed the memory bandwidth that came with quad channel.

But, that is how I would do it, just upgrade the CPU later and use either an 8700K or 9700K if the build is primarily for gaming. You have a better price to performance that fits the current market better while also having an upgrade path for a mid-platform upgrade on the CPU. It really is a better deal.

Edit:

Example on buying better ram: I purchased two g.skill 4133 CL19 21 21 2x8GB kits with Samsung B-die memory when I had my 6700K (4x8GB for a total of 32GB, which I ran at 4000@CL16 back around 2016 or 2017). I moved those sticks to my threadripper build, then moved my 6700K and MB with some cheaper 3200 ram sticks for a different purpose since my TR became my main desktop. In the same way, better ram dimms will be used until DDR5 is adopted for consumer use around 2021, which will also charge a premium like they did when DDR4 was first released for consumer use. So, spending the money for better ram now should last you, at minimum, until 2021 or a year or two later, even if you switch other parts of your build. Just wanted to give an example of how the money might stretch further on other components.

 

Maybe, but it seems like a hassle having to switch CPU, and I guess it means selling off the 'old' 8700K when you decide to upgrade to a used 9900K, and I'm not sure that the costs would balance out in favour overall - seems like more of a gamble & hassle. I'd be inclined to just build the whole PC when the 9900K came down to a reasonable plateau price and just buy new.

 

You just talked about replacing ram and graphics card, but the CPU is a hassle? Really? You have that same issue with any component replacement. Meanwhile, as to used CPUs, I bought my 4790K from an overclocker and got great voltage on it, like 1.28V up to 4.8GHz IIRC. I bought my 6700K used from the Romanian OCer that is normally in the top 10. Costs balanced out for me and you can check my scores at HWBot on the 4790K and 6700K if you do not believe me. It is no gamble if you look and buy at the right time. You buy around the time of new releases where the true competitive overclockers are dumping their cherry chips to get on the new platform.

Also, saying a CPU is too much hassle, so I'll just build another PC? Talk about way more work than undoing the mount, pulling the chip, putting in the new chip, pasting, remount, done. If you have a custom water loop rather than an AIO or air cooler, then you may have an argument.

But in the history of Intel, you don't often see retail go much below MSRP at all. This idea that it will magically come down to a unicorn price of $420 or less without being used just seems a bit comical.

Edit: Have you ever bought a used system from someone here on NotebookReview?

 

To be honest, I think everyone here is overlooking something here.

What was the cost of buying a 5 ghz binned (5 ghz @ 1.3v or lower v) i7 8700K from silicon lottery, delidded and LM repasted?
About $500 dollars right?

Now you're getting 2 MOAR COREZ on the 9900K, soldered, so no need to delid, and guaranteed 5 ghz without having pay for binning. Were there any 8086K's that could not do 5 ghz? I don't think so.
Considering how everyone is raising their prices, I think the 9900K is pretty fairly priced. Yes it's in HDET land, but it's still going to be faster than a 7820X clock for clock.

And the CPU will last a long time with 16 threads.

 

Maybe for the second to top bin, but considering the percentage that hit 5.1 or 5.2 being over 60%, it was a bad buy over the $420 mark, which included the delid and LM, etc. At that point, you had better than a coin flip just buying retail and doing it yourself. I delidded with a razor blade my 4790K, so I really think trying to say $500 is BS.

Yes, now you have solder, still doesn't mean it is worth it, and at $480 MSRP and $527 market rate, you are going to see SL prices far in excess of that. Also, AMD lowered their prices and the market price increase above MSRP is, in part, due to Intel's shortages due to not having 14nm manufacturing capacity due to their own folly in not having 10nm ready this year, so the chipsets were moved to 14nm, but the CPUs were not moved to 10nm causing a pile up of need on 14nm production without capacity, forcing a triage in production.

Meanwhile, NO, this IS NOT AN HEDT PART! This only has TWO channels of memory, it only has 24 PCIe lanes, etc. It is in no way, shape, or form HEDT!

 

How many delidde their chips? Enthusiasts included.

 

It was primarily just competitive overclockers and high end enthusiast overclockers. No one else. And considering there was no price reduction when Intel stopped using solder around Ivy Bridge, there is NO REASON to try to justify an $100 price increase for solder now.

In fact, you just proved I'm in a narrow class of enthusiasts that did it before delid tools were widely available. I think when I did my 4790K with a razor, Der8auer didn't have his tool out yet or was working on it or something. At that point, you have the vice method, the razor blade, vice with hammer, etc. It also shows exactly how long I have been playing with the more extreme side of things and that I used Intel mainstream chips at the time. So, really, you want to do this dance?

 

i delidded my when i had a 7700k in a tornado F5

 

Exactly. The 7700K at launch was $330 actual price at launch. That means Intel has doubled the cores without doubling the price. They also added soldered chips to the mix, and higher clocks and better thermals. The 9900K is overpriced but fairly priced depending how you look at it.

The Threadripper 1950X launched at $999 for 16/32. So the 9900K has exactly half the cores, and threads for about exactly half the price. How is that not fair? You can say it's not HEDT, doesn't have the PCI-E lanes, or memory channels, but it has far better overall computing where heavy threaded loads don't matter. It also has clock speeds, far better gaming performance, etc. It's a powerful chip that will be a jack of all trades for the consumer level desktop and will last for years.

 

I'm pretty sure delidding is considered the norm now for people buying the unlocked SKUs, given the proliferation of delid tools as well as CPUs sold pre-delidded. Still, a soldered IHS is nice, and a long time coming.

 

Wow, you really are that dyed in the wool, aren't you. You cannot look at price in a vacuum. The 7700K was priced that way just like the chips before it. That was before Ryzen and the core wars. In fact, you could argue that with the 7700K releasing in January, with wider availability in February of 2017, followed by a March release by AMD of the 1800X and 1700X and the non-X variant, that the release of the 8700K in the fall of the same year, outside of the yearly cadence, with a new chipset in the same year no less, was a response to AMD, like a mini freak out, much as was the 14-18 core HEDT CPUs. Fast forward to today where we have the first gen chips dirt cheap, we have the second gen chips fairly cheap, we have the 12 core first gen TR at around $420, the second gen chip coming in at $650, the first gen 16-core chip going for $700, the price of the Broadwell-E chips and X99 platform, and there going to be 10-core 7900Xs on the market soon with the release of the two 10-core 9 series Intel CPUs and it really starts looking like $520 is too much of an asking price.You don't pay 70% more when market effects show reasonable alternatives.

And little secret: AMD uses solder and is licensing the patent to solder CPUs from Intel. The additional cost is around $2.50 a CPU, IIRC from one of the journalists I watch in the tech sphere. And for two more cores last time, you only had an increase of about $30 per generation, but this time, over $100. This as the process node was further refined. Nothing about $500 for that 8c seems "fairly priced."

Now you have the 2950X for around $900, meaning you are getting half the cores for more than half the cost. And Intel kept their HEDT prices inflated as well, which arguably is going to help AMD get more HEDT market share, but that is off topic. And I like how you say ignore any workload that has higher multithreading capacity, needs double the memory bandwidth, or running two GPUs in a 16x/16x configuration while having an NVMe array, a sound card, etc., needs the higher L3 cache amount, etc., to try to justify the chip. Ignore everything for why a person chooses HEDT, then try to say this mainstream chip is like an HEDT chip. Sad.

Very true. As time went on, and with the Rockit 88 gaining popularity, plus Der8auer's great works, delidding has become WAY more common, though not universal. I really agree that solder is nice, and I was glad I didn't have to delid my 1950X. First CPU in a long time that I didn't have to. Glad Intel felt enough market pressure from AMD they needed to solder to get the higher speeds at stock.

 

If you want one, you should get it. No further explanation needed. Not a problem. Looks like it will be a really awesome CPU to have.

Don't forget that need isn't the only consideration though. Sometimes there is no "need" but desire is equally valid. Simply wanting it is a good enough reason IMHO. And, there can be more than one reason for wanting (or rejecting) something, including personal preference.

We could start a whole thread that would be off topic about the fact that some people are unable to discern between wanting and needing. I'd say that 95% (or more) of us actually do not "need" most of the stuff we have. We're dealing almost exclusively with wants for the vast majority of us.

 

O man not AMD solder on my chip! His isn’t the first time Inte has soldered their chips as I’m sure you know. They have their own patents for ihs soldering so while I’m not saying that’s true there seems little reason they would do that. Do you have a real source?

 

I'm so used to delidding now that it almost feels like something is wrong if I don't need to, LOL. A CPU with no delid kind of feels like a day without sunshine. But, not needing to delid is ultimately better as long as the temps are as good or better than a delidded CPU. Needing to and not being able to (because of soldering the IHS) might really suck though.

 

True on "need." But this is more them trying to say the 9900K is good value. It isn't. Doesn't mean people with need shouldn't get it. But, seriously, $520 is WAY overpriced for the value. If it was about $100 cheaper, I would not be trying to have people think of it. For that, as I've been saying, grab an 8700K or 9700K, throw the extra cash for the build toward better ram, a better graphics card, etc. Anyone paying extortion pricing at this time really should think more on what they are getting for their money is mainly what I'm getting at.

I already talked about when Intel soldered and said that AMD is licensing Intel's patent for soldering. Go back and reread!

I do hear ya there. With the SMBs on the 4790K, I was sweating when cutting that chip loose to delid. I wish I had some of the tools that came out after! LOL. But I agree, I'm hoping Intel solders well this time and there isn't some moth in the vat that really gums things up.

 

AMD's way to keep the loss lowest possible on their Ryzen 2700X chips (The need to keep lowest possible prices to be competitively vs. Intels coming 8 core 9900K chips). Throw out cut down GPU trash to the Chineese people Yeah I can imagine how they try to find all ways out of this

 

You do realize that the cost per Zen die is around $20, right?

 

AMD lowered their price temporarily in the last few days to make itself appear so much better in the price to performance reviews that those guys love to point towards. Ahh I love competition and the fear in AMDs eyes. If their product was so good why the price slashing?

 

Perhaps I should be clearer. Reduce the loss in earnings. Sorry, sir. The loss of income can, as mentioned, be covered elsewhere

Have they other choices? Nope They struggled even with the 6 core 8700K

 

Good or bad aside, I find myself wondering how low they can go and what that ultimately means about the original price in terms of markup. If they can afford to drop prices that much, how much were previous buyers overpaying? Or, to put it another way, how hard were previous buyers getting screwed? I also hope they are not selling their processors at a loss as a ploy to gain market share, or at such a low profit margin that they will struggle financially. They shouldn't have to sell their CPUs dirt cheap if they're as great as we are expected to believe they are, and if they are that great, then AMD deserves to make really strong profits selling them. If we want to continue seeing them get better and better in the years ahead, then they need to make strong profits. They're not going to continue to do well if they do not have a ton of money to work with. I'd also like to see them be able to afford to eventually compete at the top of the world with the Green Goblin again, but that certainly won't happen without lots of money available to pay for it.

If lots of people are going to pay 9900K prices without flinching, I would expect 2700X fanboys wouldn't flinch much about paying similar prices to have what they want. I am not sure that it is smart for AMD to not take advantage of that. I wouldn't buy a Zen CPU just because it is cheaper. If I were going to buy one it would be because it is better. The lots cheaper part makes me more than a little bit suspicious.

 

i think intel is testing water at this point, if they can get away with charging premium i9 pricing on 8 cores that were meant to be 6c i7 replacement they will.

though AMD's value is very good, for us laptop who already has z170/270 and 370, its not so good. I mean we can upgrade it + bios flash it, or we just buy mobo + cpu and get it to work, much better than buying a brand new ryzen laptop that cost alot more while lose in performance.

me and @Papusan will go for upgrade route for sure, best performance, lowest price, best upgrade value all in 1 complete package.

im sorry AMD/bga boys, this upgrade probably isn't for you unless you fork out $4-6k again.

 

Well, as far as I know there are no Ryzen laptops that are actually worth buying, so that is not even an option at this point in time. Their low TDP turdbook crap certainly isn't anything to get very excited about, and there are not many of those options out there even if they were something to get excited about. I agree with you conceptually, though.

 

yea that 4.2-4.3ghz overclock is a real let down, not to mention those are mostly on water cooled desktop, inside a laptop it probably wont even hit 4ghz with acceptable temp.

sorry AMD boys, 2013 was almost 6 yrs ago which we already had p570wm that could do 4.2ghz+ on 8 cores.

 

I was benching my M18xR1 with 2920XM at those clock speeds and higher. It wasn't nearly as powerful as an unlocked Zen CPU that is 10 years newer, but I totally get what you are saying about the disappointing clock speeds and poor overclocking. It's pretty lame to be limited to such low clocks in 2018.

 

And forget 4.2GHz on all 8 cores in any Ryzen laptop. Maybe 3.7GHz if you are lucky but that's max for all cores from what I remember seen.

 

I'm talking about building a whole new system (hypothetical though as personally I'm not building a new system now). "Maybe" to your other points, but I'm not sold on it, still seems like extra hassle and potentially no cost savings.