9700K for $200

[Downkey]

So many of your probably know that the 9700K and 9900K are 200 and 300 online at microcenter. What are your thoughts? Is this the one time of year where I could actually put intel in a PCP list? https://www.microcenter.com/product/512484/intel-core-i7-9700k-coffee-lake-36ghz-eight-core-lga-1151-boxed-processor

[Letgomyleghoe]

i mean if you want to buy a motherboard and CPU with no upgrade potential be my guest.

[Fasauceome]

They're only worth it with a Z390 motherboard. If you can get one of those with a decent VRM heat sink for $80, good deal. But until then, Intel has to compete with AMD 8 core CPUs at $300 and B450 motherboards that can overclock them for under $100.

 

No to mention, the 10700K is about $300 so it's the same as the i9 but on a newer socket. Just a better buy.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Fasauceome

[Downkey]

1 minute ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

i mean if you want to buy a motherboard and CPU with no upgrade potential be my guest.

Hahaha, yeah.


I still think the CPU itself is a good deal. The whole platform itself is a mess tho


 

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

They're only worth it with a Z390 motherboard. If you can get one of those with a decent VRM heat sink for $80, good deal. But until then, Intel has to compete with AMD 8 core CPUs at $300 and B450 motherboards that can overclock them for under $100.

Wouldn't these CPUs be leftover stock? Or is Intel still producing them?

[DailyProcrastinator]

Personally if all you do is game I think $200 for just the CPU is a great deal if you can find a motherboard. 

 

Here in Canada the 9700k is $340, which is still a pretty compelling deal hahaha. 

[Fasauceome]

Just now, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

Wouldn't these CPUs be leftover stock? Or is Intel still producing them?

They are supposedly leftover stock, but Intel CPUs historically go up in price when they get replaced, not down. The 7700K, for example, never went below $300 or something as a usual retail price, despite the core count being immediately outmoded relative to the new generations.

 

I could honestly see Intel continuing to produce coffee lake, though, since they're on 14nm for everything still and people really aren't buying up 10th gen, so OEM stock probably still needs to be filled. Kinda like how the 1600AF was born, AMD was still selling the 1600 like crazy but had to move on so they ported it to 12nm

[CommanderAlex]

12 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

i mean if you want to buy a motherboard and CPU with no upgrade potential be my guest.

AMD is in that boat now as well as AMD Ryzen 5000 series should be the last CPU generation for AM4 (Its been 5 years already). They're both dead end platforms but Intel is more so since they love changing chipsets every two years. 

[Dedayog]

18 minutes ago, Downkey said:

Hahaha, yeah.


I still think the CPU itself is a good deal. The whole platform itself is a mess tho


 

Platform is a closed end, just like AM4 is now.  No one will be upgrading their 5600X on their same motherboards in the future either.

 

The 9700k for $200 vs the 3600x for $200.  Both allow room on their respective boards for an upgrade, the 9700k to 9900k, and the 3600x to a few more choices. 

 

Personally I'd go with the 9700k for $200, and then upgrade in a few generations.  If I bought the 3600x, I'd still probably wait a few gens to upgrade again,  so the "upgrade path" option is moot for me.

 

A lot of emphasis is placed on "dead end platforms" but outside of the very few enthusiasts, many people don't upgrade within a platform regardless how long it lasts, in any meaningful way. Sure they may take a 3600 machine, use it for 6 years, then pop a 5600x in it to extend it a year, but realistically?  

 

9700k for $200 is a great deal.  Period.

[xg32]

57 minutes ago, Downkey said:

So many of your probably know that the 9700K and 9900K are 200 and 300 online at microcenter. What are your thoughts? Is this the one time of year where I could actually put intel in a PCP list? https://www.microcenter.com/product/512484/intel-core-i7-9700k-coffee-lake-36ghz-eight-core-lga-1151-boxed-processor

they had the 10700k for 200usd for a day, the 9700k is probably like bottom barrel leftovers now, also would not get the 9900k over the 5600x for 300usd under any situation, not really a great deal.

 

If you need a pc right now, go for it, not the worst.

[Mister Woof]

2 hours ago, Dedayog said:

Platform is a closed end, just like AM4 is now.  No one will be upgrading their 5600X on their same motherboards in the future either.

 

The 9700k for $200 vs the 3600x for $200.  Both allow room on their respective boards for an upgrade, the 9700k to 9900k, and the 3600x to a few more choices. 

 

Personally I'd go with the 9700k for $200, and then upgrade in a few generations.  If I bought the 3600x, I'd still probably wait a few gens to upgrade again,  so the "upgrade path" option is moot for me.

 

A lot of emphasis is placed on "dead end platforms" but outside of the very few enthusiasts, many people don't upgrade within a platform regardless how long it lasts, in any meaningful way. Sure they may take a 3600 machine, use it for 6 years, then pop a 5600x in it to extend it a year, but realistically?  

 

9700k for $200 is a great deal.  Period.

This times 100

 

People over emphasize upgrade path to the point that imo it's a meme.

 

It's even better when the poster says they're on something ancient, like an i5-2500 or an FX chip. 

Bro they are gaming on 8 year old tech, no way in hell they're upgrading soon enough for upgrade path to matter.

 

As for myself, I'm on an 8700k and upgrade path wouldn't mean shit to me, since I didn't want a 9900k and I wouldn't  even have wanted to replace it with a 10900k if i could. By the time I want something better, I'll also want a better motherboard.

[HardStroke]

in my opinion its a very bad cpu

went from 6/12 to 8/8 with no hypertheading

also its a dead platform so from a 9700K you can only upgrade to a 9900K which is basically a 10700K just with no upgrade options

[Dedayog]

20 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

in my opinion its a very bad cpu

went from 6/12 to 8/8 with no hypertheading

also its a dead platform so from a 9700K you can only upgrade to a 9900K which is basically a 10700K just with no upgrade options

You really need to read what was posted above you.

 

[maizenblue]

There's no point in buying a 9900k for 300, as MC has the 10700k for 20 dollars more, and the 10700k performs slightly better at stock, OC's a little better, run's cooler, gives you more mobo options, and can be upgraded with your mobo. 

 

The 9700k for 200 could make sense though if someone is on a budget, needs a CPU NOW and doesnt do much multi tasking or streaming, and they can find a decent z390 mobo still in stock for a good price. The 9700k still performs almost as well as any flagship CPU out there now in titles out now, and handily beats anything in the 200 price range.

 

The problem with the 9700k is in future titles. Battlefield 6 is coming out next year and will likely feature 128 player matches and be optimized for 8C 16T console CPU's, so the 9700k's lack of hyperthreading might be a liability for that and other future titles, so be prepared to upgrade if you want optimum performance. I think 200 is cheap enough it might still be worth buying and then selling a year from now when new CPUs will be out or the price of recently released ones that are hard to find drop. 

[dizmo]

10 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

There's no point in buying a 9900k for 300, as MC has the 10700k for 20 dollars more, and the 10700k performs slightly better at stock, OC's a little better, run's cooler, gives you more mobo options, and can be upgraded with your mobo. 

 

The 9700k for 200 could make sense though if someone is on a budget, needs a CPU NOW and doesnt do much multi tasking or streaming, and they can find a decent z390 mobo still in stock for a good price. The 9700k still performs almost as well as any flagship CPU out there now in titles out now, and handily beats anything in the 200 price range.

 

The problem with the 9700k is in future titles. Battlefield 6 is coming out next year and will likely feature 128 player matches and be optimized for 8C 16T console CPU's, so the 9700k's lack of hyperthreading might be a liability for that and other future titles, so be prepared to upgrade if you want optimum performance. I think 200 is cheap enough it might still be worth buying and then selling a year from now when new CPUs will be out or the price of recently released ones that are hard to find drop. 

What makes you think that games will immediately jump to 8c16t support just because they're on console?

It didn't work that way before. Why would it now?

 

I highly doubt that the 9700k will be struggling in games for quite a while.

[maizenblue]

We’ll see. People said the same thing about I5s a few years ago and ive seen people say their 9600k already struggled in bf5 multiplayer. 
 

Bf6 devs have more or less stated they will take full advantage of the extra threads the consoles have to increase the scope of the game even more and i doubt theyre the only ones. All im saying is if u plan on keeping a cpu for many years the 9700k isnt a good buy even at 200. I ieep my cpus for at least 3 years. My 4790k lasted me 6. 
 

 

[Dedayog]

And after I wrote that, Tech Deals comes along and says it's a bad idea.  I disagree, from a value perspective.  I also agree with his principle about the 9900k being a better deal if using for 5 years, for example.

 

I do think he's stretching his practicality vide a bit when he says if $100 makes or breaks your build that you may need to look at priorities in your life.  Some folks just have a set budget for something and stay strong to it.  We can always find ways to justify/rationalize another X amount for Y performance if we truly want to, so having a hard budget is a good thing.