Oh Intel, what are you doing?

[borntolose]

The higher your prices are, the farther you fall, the longer you walk, the farther you crawl

 

Intel, step into the house that AMD built.

 

(Actual Discussion time now): AMD was the first one to the 8 core cpu market with their Bulldozer architecture. Were they that good? Probably not. But a few years later and some SERIOUS fine-tuning, the release of Ryzen undeniably shook the cpu market enough to make Intel not only bring a 6 core, but also an 8 core processor to their mainstream lineup for the first time in their history. The i9 9900k ACTUALLY released today and I was excited before but... not anymore. I'm not even a little bit optimistic about it. Why? Let me tell you.

 

Price of the Ryzen 7 2700X: $304

Price of the i9 9900k: $580 (plus a good cooler since it doesn't come with one and the thermals are HORRIBLE): $680

Percentage increase: about 224%

 

Ah, looking at these prices I can tell Intel is obviously a more premium product, right? I mean, look at the Z390 boards! Ooohh, very shiny and pretty... Lets watch some day one reviews and-.... oh... oh this isn't good.... This can't be...

 

After averaging out a few review channels tests, (such as Jayztwocents and Hardware Unboxed) the i9 9900k IN WORK SCENARIOS is about 20% faster on average with both the AMD and Intel cpus overclocked... Only 20%... But who cares about workloads am I right? I bet it's a super fast gaming processor! Oh.... Oh no again... At 1440p (I didn't look at 1080p because more and more people are investing into 1440p displays, and thats the best  resoluton to play at if you ask me. And it's quite obvious Intel dominates 1080p anyways although not by that much) you're looking at maybe 5-10 FPS which is WAY off the 50% increase they claimed a week ago lmao. 

 

After the bullshit they tried to pull over at principled technologies, I won't be supporting Intel anymore until they get their act together and become more realistic. 

 

But please, give me a GOOD reason to pay more than $300 for this processor over the Ryzen 7... I'll wait.

 

 

 

[19_blackie_73]

I don't get their strategy too.
CPU, Mobo, RAM and a cooler would cost me more than a full amd build with gpu.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

i don't suport them anymore either. they've been so lazy the last few years. a 6th gen laptop like mine still feels very fast. even though it's now almost 2 years old. they've just not been innovating. only playing catch-up with AMD. 

[dizmo]

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

[r2724r16]

It's no secret that Intel CPUs are overpriced in terms of price per performance compared to AMD, but the sh*t they've been doing lately is pushing me towards AMD. 

[jiyeon]

It's a shame Intel has become this, charging that much for a CPU that they cheated on benchmarks with. They've been slow in general since Skylake era. I still remain with Intel because that's the company I've grown up, all but one machine in my family is using Intel CPUs.

[borntolose]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

[TheKDub]

23 minutes ago, borntolose said:

 

The single reason that I can think of that'd push someone towards Intel is the higher single thread performance.

 

I don't understand who at Intel thinks that jacking up prices to around twice what the competitor's chip costs, and requiring a new motherboard for every single new generation, are good ideas. At least they're making it easy for AMD to take the low price market by storm.

[borntolose]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Surprise. If you want the best performance, you have to pay for it.

I haven't looked at reviews of the 9700k, but if they're like the 8700k (which is still available), then it's a more comparable chip in both performance and price.

I won't buy an AMD system until they've nailed down their memory issues. I have no intention of sourcing specific memory modules made by certain vendors. They're getting better, granted, but it's still not enough to make me switch.

Plus, if gaming is your main goal, Intel still takes the cake.

If gaming performance is your goal, Just buy a R7 and use the savings to go from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, borntolose said:

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

That isn't now though, is it. Until it's the same across the board, and I can plug and play whatever I want into an AMD system and it'll work, it's IMO a shit option.

Intel can do it. It's unacceptable that AMD can't.

3 minutes ago, seoz said:

It's a shame Intel has become this, charging that much for a CPU that they cheated on benchmarks with. They've been slow in general since Skylake era. I still remain with Intel because that's the company I've grown up, all but one machine in my family is using Intel CPUs.

Did they actually cheat? Or was it the contracted company that had faulty test methods?

You can't really blame Intel for their testing results entirely. Sure, someone should have looked more into the results and how they were achieved, but the marketing team might not be as technical as a reviewer or engineer.

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

The single reason that I can think of that'd push someone towards Intel is the higher single thread performance.

 

I don't understand who at Intel thinks that jacking up prices to around twice what the competitor's chip costs, and requiring a new motherboard for every single new generation, are good ideas. At least they're making it easy for AMD to take the low price market by storm.

Erm. These chips work on 300 series boards. So, they still have 2 generations working on the same chipset.

Not as good as AMD, but not as bad as that.

1 minute ago, borntolose said:

If gaming performance is your goal, Just buy a R7 and use the settings to go from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti

If someone's going for the utmost performance, which you can assume with the purchase of something like the 9900k, then they'd already have enough money to attain that.

It doesn't change the fact that, for the highest level of performance, there's an associated cost.

Let's be real. Most gamers are just as well off with an 8600k as they are an 8700k; it even beats it in some games. Those who want bragging rights step up.

[Enderman]

Because intel can put the prices up and still sell millions of units, that's why.

[borntolose]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That isn't now though, is it. Until it's the same across the board, and I can plug and play whatever I want into an AMD system and it'll work, it's IMO a shit option.

Intel can do it. It's unacceptable that AMD can't.

Did they actually cheat? Or was it the contracted company that had faulty test methods?

You can't really blame Intel for their testing results entirely. Sure, someone should have looked more into the results and how they were achieved, but the marketing team might not be as technical as a reviewer or engineer.

Erm. These chips work on 300 series boards. So, they still have 2 generations working on the same chipset.

Not as good as AMD, but not as bad as that.

If someone's going for the utmost performance, which you can assume with the purchase of something like the 9900k, then they'd already have enough money to attain that.

It doesn't change the fact that, for the highest level of performance, there's an associated cost.

Let's be real. Most gamers are just as well off with an 8600k as they are an 8700k; it even beats it in some games. Those who want bragging rights step up.

Weellll, they might not have cheated, but they had the AUDACITY to come out, even after all the backlash, and say "Oh but the 9900k is still the best gaming processor!" I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying it's not worth it. Especially since they didn't defend themselves at all. That 50% performance boost they claimed they had over the 2700x? Dropped to less than 20%...

 

They PAID principled technologies to do this. But it's not the fact that the tests were misleading that makes me not want to support intel anymore, its the fact that they had principled technologies release these reviews A WEEK before the CPU's actually released, and reviewers on youtube were still under NDA and could not confirm nor bust those results, so anyone who saw those results were deceived. 

 

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

 

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no.

[DocSwag]

10 minutes ago, borntolose said:

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

  

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no

No one's saying you should buy a 9900k... Really it's only if you're getting a balls the wall pc. Any reasonable person would probably at maximum recommend a 9700k for a gaming pc unless the budget is like over $3000

 

Also just saying but first you said the 9700k outperforms the 9900k and then said the 9900k is the best for gaming...

[borntolose]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

No one's saying you should buy a 9900k... Really it's only if you're getting a balls the wall pc. Any reasonable person would probably at maximum recommend a 9700k for a gaming pc unless the budget is like over $3000

 

Also just saying but first you said the 9700k outperforms the 9900k and then said the 9900k is the best for gaming...

That is true. I mean... If you're budget is over $3000, the Z390 boards DO look nicer, and why invest in cheaper products when you can have... U N L I M I T E D   P O W E R... and RGB of course

 

And yeah, probably should have thought that sentence out just a bit more. What I meant, is that the 9700K performs VERY similarly and in some titles there are literally NO performance gains t be had, or if there is, it's maybe 1 to 2 fps. And thats probably just margin of error. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

34 minutes ago, borntolose said:

AMD HAS fixed most memory issues, at least with the 3000-3200 MHz dimms on B450 and X470. Wait until Ryzen 2 and I assure you, memory won't be a problem.

 

Yeah of course you have to pay for it, but $300+ for a few frames? Intel is insane lmfaooo

I wouldn't claim victory until the number of memory issue related threads on the forum regarding Ryzen dies down. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note:

Surprise surprise, where I work, all the systems we deploy are Intel based. Intel is still at the forefront for enterprise and it shows as Ryzen is still having a hard time breaking into this valuable market. There are only a select number of models that feature Ryzen and no one is buying them. 

[Enderman]

21 minutes ago, borntolose said:

Weellll, they might not have cheated, but they had the AUDACITY to come out, even after all the backlash, and say "Oh but the 9900k is still the best gaming processor!" I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying it's not worth it. Especially since they didn't defend themselves at all. That 50% performance boost they claimed they had over the 2700x? Dropped to less than 20%...

 

They PAID principled technologies to do this. But it's not the fact that the tests were misleading that makes me not want to support intel anymore, its the fact that they had principled technologies release these reviews A WEEK before the CPU's actually released, and reviewers on youtube were still under NDA and could not confirm nor bust those results, so anyone who saw those results were deceived. 

 

I will pay for overpriced drinks and food at a ball game before I ever pay that fucking much for a processor with limited benefits over their cheaper alternatives... Hell, at least the 9700k is somewhat valuable seeing as how its about $370.... and outperforms the 9900k in games.

 

Is the 9900k the BEST for gaming? Hell yeah, of course it is, I won't even deny it. Is it the best CHOICE? Hell no.

1) The 9900k is still the best processor regardless. "worth" is subjective. If you think it's not worth it then that's your opinion only.

 

2) Just like AMD has done in the past. As linus said, people like you should have just ignored the benchmarks and waited for real reviews, instead of making a huge deal of something that happens regularly.

 

3) People spend millions of dollars on hypercar because it is just slightly faster than a normal cheap car. Just because you're not willing to pay for the best, doesn't mean other people aren't.

 

4) Maybe for you it's not the best choice. This is a subjective matter, not an objective one. If someone has more money than you and wants the best of the best, then the 9900K is the best choice.

[borntolose]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) The 9900k is still the best processor regardless. "worth" is subjective. If you think it's not worth it then that's your opinion only.

 

2) Just like AMD has done in the past. As linus said, people like you should have just ignored the benchmarks and waited for real reviews, instead of making a huge deal of something that happens regularly.

 

3) People spend millions of dollars on hypercar because it is just slightly faster than a normal cheap car. Just because you're not willing to pay for the best, doesn't mean other people aren't.

 

4) Maybe for you it's not the best choice. This is a subjective matter, not an objective one. If someone has more money than you and wants the best of the best, then the 9900K is the best choice.

1. Never said it wasn't the best. It's Intel, of course it's the best... for now

 

2. It's the fact that Intel paid them and how they handled it, not the benchmarks themselves. Very poorly handled. Shame on Intel.

 

3. Ah yes, the 1% do, but for the rest of us, spending money on something you will be using for a LONG time requires actual thought and consideration of all the specs, prices, etc. before making that final decision. Although, everyone wants a super car, not everyone can have one. Just like I would LOVE to have a 9900k but imo with all options considered, it's not the best value. Again, just my opinion.

 

4. The only way I could personally see it as someone elses "best" choice is if money really isn't a problem. If thats the case, go for it!

 

But in reality, if you want better workload performance and not gaming performance, you shouldn't be looking at the 9900k OR R7 series anyways. If you want  the best gaming performance, hands down, no restraints, its your choice between the 9700k and the 9900k.

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

2. It's the fact that Intel paid them and how they handled it, not the benchmarks themselves. Very poorly handled. Shame on Intel.

AMD has released BS benchmarks themselves before, not even by a third party, so we just ignored them. Why can't you do the same?

 

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

3. Ah yes, the 1% do, but for the rest of us, spending money on something you will be using for a LONG time requires actual thought and consideration of all the specs, prices, etc. before making that final decision. Although, everyone wants a super car, not everyone can have one. Just like I would LOVE to have a 9900k but imo with all options considered, it's not the best value. Again, just my opinion.

Then let that 1% buy the CPU they want, and you buy a cheaper ryzen or whatever, and everyone's happy.

 

5 minutes ago, borntolose said:

4. The only way I could personally see it as someone elses "best" choice is if money really isn't a problem. If thats the case, go for it!

 

But in reality, if you want better workload performance and not gaming performance, you shouldn't be looking at the 9900k OR R7 series anyways. If you want  the best gaming performance, hands down, no restraints, its your choice between the 9700k and the 9900k.

Ok great so you're basically admitting that this is another case of "I can't afford it so I'm going to complain" ?

 

1 hour ago, borntolose said:

But please, give me a GOOD reason to pay more than $300 for this processor over the Ryzen 7... I'll wait.

Clearly you're not in the financial position to buy one if you're making an entire thread dedicated to complaining about the price, so how about you DON'T buy one, and avoid the need to rant.

[Enderman]

This is literally the same rant from people who complained the titan V was $3000, that the 7980XE was $2000, etc etc etc

 

Seriously, if you can't afford it just don't buy it and quit complaining.

 

The top performing of anything in this world always costs a premium, even if the performance improvements are marginal.

Sometimes even with no performance improvement one object can cost more than another simply due to branding or marketing or many other reasons.

That's how the world works.

 

Companies adjust their prices based on sales numbers, not the amount of internet forum posts ranting about the price. So making posts like this is not useful at all.

[borntolose]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

AMD has released BS benchmarks themselves before, not even by a third party, so we just ignored them. Why can't you do the same?

 

Then let that 1% buy the CPU they want, and you buy a cheaper ryzen or whatever, and everyone's happy.

 

Ok great so you're basically admitting that this is another case of "I can't afford it so I'm going to complain" ?

 

Clearly you're not in the financial position to buy one if you're making an entire thread dedicated to complaining about the price, so how about you DON'T buy one, and avoid the need to rant.

First of all, that 1% can buy whatever they want. I even stated that even I wanted it but obviously its out of my range, so I have to put thought into it, just like most other customers out there

 

Secondly, I'm not complaining because I can't afford it... which is true... but even if I had the money, the 9900k offers poor value in comparison to other chips not even from AMD, from intel themselves. The performance increase even over older generations doesn't justify the absurd price. But if money isn't a problem, or if you can actually use the performance for stremaing, your job, or whatever else  (or just want it for gaming, workloads, or bragging rights) then the 9900k is in fact the best option. For folks on a budget, money saved on not buying a 9900k and buying say a 9700k instead will allow them to spend it on a better gpu or something else towards their systems performance, because its not just about the CPU.

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, borntolose said:

Secondly, I'm not complaining because I can't afford it... which is true... but even if I had the money, the 9900k offers poor value in comparison to other chips not even from AMD, from intel themselves. The performance increase even over older generations doesn't justify the absurd price.

Welcome to the real world where the price does not scale linearly with performance.

Surprised you haven't realized that until now.

 

8 minutes ago, borntolose said:

But if money isn't a problem, or if you can actually use the performance for stremaing, your job, or whatever else  (or just want it for gaming, workloads, or bragging rights) then the 9900k is in fact the best option. For folks on a budget, money saved on not buying a 9900k and buying say a 9700k instead will allow them to spend it on a better gpu or something else towards their systems performance, because its not just about the CPU.

Thanks for stating the obvious, I think everyone is aware of this already.

Your OP seems more of a complaint than a more objective and correct statement like this one ^^

[xg32]

1 hour ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

I don't get their strategy too.
CPU, Mobo, RAM and a cooler would cost me more than a full amd build with gpu.

i'm not disagreeing with OP, but as long as the 9900k sells out, i understand what intel's doing, and it's not providing value to consumers (nor should they as long as they have the fastest cpu). Apple does the same thing, and more recently, nvidia.

 

Unless someone is investing heavily into 144hz gaming, the 2700x is likely the better choice, and for the value guys, the 2600 is an amazing deal. 

 

Yet the 9900k will sell out, as many as intel can make. With a 144hz monitor, ryzen's not an option (yet)