Core i9 9900k, i7 9700k and i5 9600k show up as preorder on Dutch site.

[RobbinM]

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/142503/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-en-i5-9600k-verschijnen-in-pricewatch.html

 

These next generation chips just popped up in a popular dutch pricewatch.

The pre-order price in the i9 is €732,05, i7 is €299,-

The webshop that put the price on the i9 out there is not the cheapest by my experience, so expect the real price to be lower.

The shop that priced the i7 is most of the time one of the cheapest, so could be spot-on.

 

comparison and specs: https://tweakers.net/pricewatch/compare/1236455;1236457;1236459/

Can't wait till the first boards pop up..

 

--------------------UPDATE-------------------------

 

Prices are starting to fluctuate.

 

I have calculated the prices to what I've seen on the webshops the CPU has popped up, compared with what that webshop has te 8700k listed for. Then rounded it up a little.

 

Price on the i7 9700k should be rounded up to €299,-

Price on the i9 9900k should be rounded up to €499,-

Just put a dollar sign in front of it if you want to know expected USD pricing.

 

Also interesting: AMD is dropping prices as we speak.

Edited August 25, 2018 by RobbinM
Added update on pricing

[Princess Luna]

Only 16 PCI-e lanes on the i9 9900K? kinda disappointing, I had great hopes for 24.

[Sauron]

I still think it's pretty stupid that the i7 doesn't have hyperthreading... also 700€ for the i9 is insane, even if they drop it to 600 it's way too high.

[Sauron]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

Only 16 PCI-e lanes on the i9 9900K? kinda disappointing, I had great hopes for 24.

It probably depends on the chipset. They also want to give you a reason to buy the "enthusiast" platform.

[Brooksie359]

If the 9900k isn't sub 500 then it honestly seems like a bad deal imo. 

[SupremeGOAT]

Just now, Sauron said:

I still think it's pretty stupid that the i7 doesn't have hyperthreading... also 700€ for the i9 is insane, even if they drop it to 600 it's way too high.

pish posh in the bucket bro! think about what you can accomplish with this new i9 that we were unable to do before! 9900k+2080ti = 4k 144 fps RTX VR shmoogly

[Shally]

Intel are now shooting the other foot
AMD just bought a motorbike

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

pish posh in the bucket bro! think about what you can accomplish with this new i9 that we were unable to do before! 9900k+2080ti = 4k 144 fps RTX VR shmoogly

Yep because you couldn't do that with the 8700k. Honestly the 8700k seems like the better option if it's going to be 500+. 

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yep because you couldn't do that with the 8700k. Honestly the 8700k seems like the better option if it's going to be 500+. 

Seems like the 8700k is going to be the king gaming CPU for a while

[Brooksie359]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

Seems like the 8700k is going to be the king gaming CPU for a while

Yeah especially considering the i7 9700k doesn't have hyperthreading 

[The Benjamins]

16 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Only 16 PCI-e lanes on the i9 9900K? kinda disappointing, I had great hopes for 24.

Best part is Intel will advertise 40 lanes (16 CPU + 24 Chipset)

[19_blackie_73]

why not just make a lineup like

i9 8c16t 400€

i7 6c12t 300€

i5 4c 8t or even 6c 6t 200€

i3 4c 100€

suggested pricing based on amds pricepoints, I expect the i9 to be faster than the ryzen 8c so little higher price would make sense.
Why not just make it simple and usable??

[TetraSky]

Just now, 19_blackie_73 said:

why not just make a lineup like

i9 8c16t 400€

i7 6c12t 300€

i5 4c 8t or even 6c 6t 200€

i3 4c 100€

suggested pricing based on amds pricepoints, I expect the i9 to be faster than the ryzen 8c so little higher price would make sense.
Why not just make it simple and usable??

Because that would make way too much sense.
Just the fact that they came up with i9s as a replacement for i7s and make i7s essentially be the same as i5s but with more cores, is insane.

[SupremeGOAT]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yep because you couldn't do that with the 8700k. Honestly the 8700k seems like the better option if it's going to be 500+. 

You are not the type of person this item is being marketed to. This item is being marketed to the type of person who says stuff like "i want the best no matter the cost!". I promise you that there will be the fool who drops their current 8700k to get this and i will closely watch that fool for my own entertainment.

[RobbinM]

That shop for the i9 is usually very expensive, as I said. Expect pricing to be much lower, could be 200 less....

[SupremeGOAT]

4 minutes ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

why not just make a lineup like

i9 8c16t 400€

i7 6c12t 300€

i5 4c 8t or even 6c 6t 200€

i3 4c 100€

suggested pricing based on amds pricepoints, I expect the i9 to be faster than the ryzen 8c so little higher price would make sense.
Why not just make it simple and usable??

cuz intel?

[19_blackie_73]

Just now, TetraSky said:

Because that would make way too much sense.
Just the fact that they came up with i9s as a replacement for i7s and make i7s essentially be the same as i5s but with more cores, is insane.

yeah i know
sense is a word intel never heard about, that word doesn't occur in their database.
Why do they have to be such a dick?

I'm probably going to change platforms when i build my next system sometime down the line. My Xeon was a great deal 3 years ago and still works fine for my needs, but there will be a new system sometime in the future and if they don't change anything on their side, I won't buy that shit even if it may give me slightly more performance.

[JoeCoke]

That i9 will be a good bit faster than the 2700x, but considering you can get the 2700x from Microcenter for $240-280ish.....

 

Yeah I'll just leave it at that. Even if it drops to 600-550, the value is just not there.  Oh, but lemme guees, the REAL  enthusiasts don't care about that.

[Quadriplegic]

3 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

That shop for the i9 is usually very expensive, as I said. Expect pricing to be much lower, could be 200 less....

So, even if it sold for around €550, you would still be able to get 1920x for even less, right? 

Superior single core performance and iGPU vs ALL TEH COREZ and PCIe lanes...

I guess video editors will benefit from 9900k, but for other HEDT needs 1st gen Threadripper still should remain a better option

[Aetheria]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah especially considering the i7 9700k doesn't have hyperthreading 

The 9700k will have 8 threads and the best IPC + clock speeds available for the foreseeable future. It'll be a gaming beast, provided it doesn't thermal-throttle by the second splash screen.

 

SMT/HT doesn't provide any gaming benefit unless you're severely limited in thread count. In the days of dual-core i3 budget gaming builds, HT mattered, but it'll be a long time before you see games begin to saturate 8 threads.

[porina]

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah especially considering the i7 9700k doesn't have hyperthreading 

The value of HT is over-stated by many obsessed with thread counts. On Intel, depending on workload I've found a 0-50% gain in CPU performance, with a HT friendly workload (e.g. Cinebench R15) around the 30% mark. As such, a 6 core with HT is approximately equivalent to an 8 core without HT for those tasks, but it could be anywhere from 6 to 9 cores equivalent. In general, 8 cores without HT is going to be more consistent in performance over a 6c12t CPU.

 

Ryzen seems to have a slightly higher boost from SMT than Intel cores do with HT, but I don't has as much data on that, yet.

[RobbinM]

47 minutes ago, Quadriplegic said:

So, even if it sold for around €550, you would still be able to get 1920x for even less, right? 

Superior single core performance and iGPU vs ALL TEH COREZ and PCIe lanes...

I guess video editors will benefit from 9900k, but for other HEDT needs 1st gen Threadripper still should remain a better option

If a 9900k HEDT counterpart surfaces you could have best of both worlds. My guess is that it will not, or will not have the PCI-e lanes we want.

[NumLock21]

Back in the days first ever quad core cost about that much when it came out. Intel might be doing the same thing for this, first ever mainstream 8 core.  

[Brooksie359]

42 minutes ago, Aetheria said:

The 9700k will have 8 threads and the best IPC + clock speeds available for the foreseeable future. It'll be a gaming beast, provided it doesn't thermal-throttle by the second splash screen.

 

SMT/HT doesn't provide any gaming benefit unless you're severely limited in thread count. In the days of dual-core i3 budget gaming builds, HT mattered, but it'll be a long time before you see games begin to saturate 8 threads.

The 8700k will likely beat it in many areas and have the same if not better gaming performance because of the nature of the ring bus architecture not scaling well so the less cores the better. This means the 6 core is going to have less latency in all likelihood. 

[Brooksie359]

41 minutes ago, porina said:

The value of HT is over-stated by many obsessed with thread counts. On Intel, depending on workload I've found a 0-50% gain in CPU performance, with a HT friendly workload (e.g. Cinebench R15) around the 30% mark. As such, a 6 core with HT is approximately equivalent to an 8 core without HT for those tasks, but it could be anywhere from 6 to 9 cores equivalent. In general, 8 cores without HT is going to be more consistent in performance over a 6c12t CPU.

 

Ryzen seems to have a slightly higher boost from SMT than Intel cores do with HT, but I don't has as much data on that, yet.

You forget the limitations if the ring bus architecture. 6 cores is likely going to be better than 8 for latency unless they made some latency improvement with the 9th gen.