Intel Core i9-9900K 8 Core/16 Thread CPU Listed For Preorder at 560 Euros, Core i7-9700K 8 Core/8 Thread For 440 Euro

[xriqn]

1 hour ago, MMKing said:

So it's placement on the mainstream platform is in name only. At a premium exceeding 200USD that of the 2700x, who really cares if Intel's 8 core is faster at this point? Half a year late, and over 60% the price to the 8 core 16 thread competition.

Whats more is that the current 8th gen lineup has a marginal performance difference to any ryzen, zen or zen+ and it's not even worth paying the premium now for maybe 5 - 10fps more. I'm no fanboy of either side but intel needs to up their game with performance if they want to make their prices justifiable.

[Stefan Payne]

Did you expect something else?

They already increased the Price by a ton. Remember when you could have gotten a Upper End i5 for 150€ and an entry level i7 for 200€??

 

Yeah, was around 10Years Ago and right now the prices are way higher than that...

 

It is people, who defend the Companys for doing this shit and tell it is a good thing that are the ones who enabeling such behaviours and destroying the working market.

 

In a healthy market, people wouldn't buy it if the product isn't good (enough) and the sales will drop if there are other/better alternatives. That is how it should be. But its not in IT, sadly.

 

Anyway, there is only one solution to tell the Company that you don't like the prices:
DON'T BUY IT!

And tell them that you got something different because of the Price!

 

7 hours ago, Enderman said:

That's not how it works.

CPU prices in EU are not just US prices * conversion.

The price in USD will be almost identical to the price in europe.

 

...and the Prices in EU already include Sales Tax aka VAT.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

...and the Prices in EU already include Sales Tax aka VAT.

Yes but the prices in USD before tax are almost identical to the prices in EU including tax, that's what I meant

[S w a t s o n]

6 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

meanwhile AMD Threadripper 1920x 12 core 24 thread costs 400 $ RIP intel

yea unless you need to run cs:go at 400 FPS I really dont see how anyone is looking at the 1920x compared to this and choosing this

[alicskysareblue]

I just want to upgrade to a core i5 9500k .... if its this expensive I may just go rizen

[xriqn]

4 hours ago, elderago said:

I just want to upgrade to a core i5 9500k .... if its this expensive I may just go rizen

Or go 8th gen, don't listen to those who tell you buying into the previous gen isn't worth it. It's worth it if the price to performance ratio is better.

[flipped_bit]

6 hours ago, xriqn said:

Or go 8th gen, don't listen to those who tell you buying into the previous gen isn't worth it. It's worth it if the price to performance ratio is better.

Usually I'd agree, but the 9th gen is rumoured to have hardware fixes for Spectre, Meltdown, and related vulnerabilities.  That could make a significant performance difference in some applications - hardware fixes are usually faster than software fixes.

[SupremeGOAT]

21 hours ago, Froody129 said:

I feel like the 6/12 8700k might perform at times better than the 8/8 9700k...

JUDAS! The 9700k is an UPGRADE it will never falter to the ewey icky 8700k! Do you really think Intel would sell the 9700k for more than the 8700k with only marginal performance on the same chipset and not drop the price of the 8700k? Intel wouldn't do that... 

no they wound't....

[xriqn]

45 minutes ago, flipped_bit said:

Usually I'd agree, but the 9th gen is rumoured to have hardware fixes for Spectre, Meltdown, and related vulnerabilities.  That could make a significant performance difference in some applications - hardware fixes are usually faster than software fixes.

At this point spectre, meltdown and other crap like that are just scare tactics. Microsoft have released patches for them with windows I believe (even though it's a CPU bug) and even if you haven't installed those patches you're highly unlikely to be affected unless you go onto stuff that's shady or download random shit, etc etc.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, xriqn said:

Or go 8th gen, don't listen to those who tell you buying into the previous gen isn't worth it. It's worth it if the price to performance ratio is better.

Or if the performance delta between the current gen, and products 5 generations old is piss poor.

[xriqn]

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Or if the performance delta between the current gen, and products 5 generations old is piss poor.

Which happens to be true with intel since sandy bridge.

[yian88]

Those prices are 50% too expensive than they should be.

[Tech Enthusiast]

On 24.8.2018 at 10:57 PM, mate_mate91 said:

meanwhile AMD Threadripper 1920x 12 core 24 thread costs 400 $ RIP intel

I would agree if all cores would be made equal.

 

I am actually not sure if id rather have 8 intel cores or 12 AMD cores. 

Yeah AMD is pushing good right now, but the skepticism remains strong.

 

Currently considering if I want to upgrade my CPU as well as the GPU and honestly lost on what I would go for.

Can't wait for benchmarks. You can say whatever you want about NVidida pricing, but at least it is easy to pick the right GPU for your needs.

Intel and AMD push out new CPUs left, right and center and in like a dozen variations each as well. Kinda hard to follow without checking all the times.

[Giiman95]

On 8/24/2018 at 2:57 PM, mate_mate91 said:

meanwhile AMD Threadripper 1920x 12 core 24 thread costs 400 $ RIP intel

And it has more PCIE lanes!

[Linus_torvalds]

8 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

I would agree if all cores would be made equal.

 

I am actually not sure if id rather have 8 intel cores or 12 AMD cores. 

Yeah AMD is pushing good right now, but the skepticism remains strong.

 

Currently considering if I want to upgrade my CPU as well as the GPU and honestly lost on what I would go for.

Can't wait for benchmarks. You can say whatever you want about NVidida pricing, but at least it is easy to pick the right GPU for your needs.

Intel and AMD push out new CPUs left, right and center and in like a dozen variations each as well. Kinda hard to follow without checking all the times.

Well intel had so many vulnerabilities that fixing took 10-20% of performance. 4 years of inovations. They usualy had 3-5% difference between generations. Now even HT is vulnerable and you need to disable that. It's another 30% of performance lose.

All their performace increase was through introducing vulnerabilities. Now when they are fixing them performance goes down.

 

I would just go for AMD ryzen. It's cheaper and has better multi core performance, no matter what is single core performance. It's not that far now anyways. AMD ryzen second gen is better or equal to hawell. I myself have haswell in my laptop. It's more then enoguh. Why spend a LOT of money on 10% increase in single thread performance? Everything tries to use more and more cores.

 

And there is another matter. Intel was releasend i3 2/4 threads i5 4/4 threads (mobile 2/4 threads) and i7 2/4/8/12 threads on desktop and mobile and pricing them VERY HIGH. When AMD made ryzen they soon started releasing 4/8 thread i5s on mobile market. Jumped core count to 6 on mobile and to 8 on desktop. i5s have HT. For me this is already enough not to build desktop on Intel. They are too bad.

[LAwLz]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:03 PM, Froody129 said:

I feel like the 6/12 8700k might perform at times better than the 8/8 9700k...

Maybe in extremely rare situations.

In best case scenarios using typical consumer programs (I use "typical" very loosely here) the performance benefit of SMT is around 20%. Usually less.

 

So:

6 cores 6 threads = 100% performance (baseline).

6 cores 12 threads = 120% performance.

8 cores 8 threads = 133% performance.

 

On top of that, the benefits of more threads usually becomes smaller and smaller, the more threads you got. It is easier to find programs properly and evenly using 8 threads than 12 threads.

 

I expect the 8 core no-HT processor to whoop the floor of the 6 core 12 thread processor in 99% of all programs.

[schwellmo92]

I'm interested to see if IPC drops this gen due to the security fixes (versus un-patched 8th gen).

[xriqn]

 

17 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

I'm interested to see if IPC drops this gen due to the security fixes (versus un-patched 8th gen).

Like I said previously:

17 hours ago, xriqn said:

At this point spectre, meltdown and other crap like that are just scare tactics. Microsoft have released patches for them with windows I believe (even though it's a CPU bug) and even if you haven't installed those patches you're highly unlikely to be affected unless you go onto stuff that's shady or download random shit, etc etc.

All these patches do really is just cause worse IPC, it doesn't matter if you install them or not anyway, the chances of you getting affected by spectre or meltdown are VERY small.

[schwellmo92]

1 hour ago, xriqn said:

 

Like I said previously:

All these patches do really is just cause worse IPC, it doesn't matter if you install them or not anyway, the chances of you getting affected by spectre or meltdown are VERY small.

The chances of me having a car crash are pretty small, maybe I shouldn't wear a seat belt?

[xriqn]

15 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

The chances of me having a car crash are pretty small, maybe I shouldn't wear a seat belt?

Surprisingly many don't wear a seatbelt while driving as it restrains their movement somewhat.

[Sauron]

Way overpriced, the only thing it has going for it is the massive clock speed but I'm not sure it will be enough to compete against 12 core threadrippers (which is what that price places it against). "Gamers" have no use for it and workstation people will want ecc support and more pcie lanes...

On 8/25/2018 at 12:53 AM, NMS said:

Honestly, I'm not impressed with those. I'd rather get a first gen threadripper that just dropped in price.

A second gen 12 core would "only" be about 90 bucks more, too, and on top of 50% more cores you'd also get the extra pcie lanes and workstation features. Unless the performance is REALLY similar, going for the i9 will be hard to justify.

[GoldenLag]

4 hours ago, mate_mate91 said:

Well intel had so many vulnerabilities that fixing took 10-20% of performance. 4 years of inovations. They usualy had 3-5% difference between generations. Now even HT is vulnerable and you need to disable that. It's another 30% of performance lose.

All their performace increase was through introducing vulnerabilities. Now when they are fixing them performance goes down.

Have you double checked those numbers sir? Yes the patches came with performance drop, but more or less only in specific workloads that the average consumer dont come into contact with (at least last time i checked the numbers, tbh that was a while ago). 

[xriqn]

Tbh everything's vulnerable in some way, you just gotta have common sense and not download random crap, not go to shady websites, not open weird emails. etc. Avoiding being hit by exploits just takes common sense most of the time.

[porina]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

In best case scenarios using typical consumer programs (I use "typical" very loosely here) the performance benefit of SMT is around 20%. Usually less.

Agreed it depends strongly on the code. Cinebench R15 is about 30%. Highest possibly encountered could be 50% or higher but they're extremely rare niche cases.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I expect the 8 core no-HT processor to whoop the floor of the 6 core 12 thread processor in 99% of all programs.

8c8t would also perform more consistently too. With SMT on, if two threads are on the same core they will compete for resources.

[GoldenLag]

22 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

The chances of me having a car crash are pretty small, maybe I shouldn't wear a seat belt?

A better example is. What is the chance of someone deliberatly running into your car? Now the higher profile you are the more likely you are to be hit deliberatly. Does that mean the average guy has to be on edge in case some decides to do so?

 

Spectre is bad and all. But shit happens and there isnt much to do than walk through it.