The true oddity, is why do both the 8400 and 8500 both exist with such a ridiculously tiny delta between them?
In the grand scheme of things, a $10 or $20 difference doesn't equate to much in terms of the total cost of ownership.
For example:
8400 ($180) + B360 mobo ($90) + 16GB DDR4 2666 ($170) = $440 platform cost for 3.8GHz MT / 4.0GHz ST
8500 ($190) + B360 mobo ($90) + 16GB DDR4 2666 ($170) = $450 platform cost for 3.9GHz MT / 4.1GHz ST
8600 ($210) + B360 mobo ($90) + 16GB DDR4 2666 ($170) = $470 platform cost for 4.1GHz MT / 4.3GHz ST
Doesn't look like such a bad value when viewed in that context, does it? And that's just the CPU + mobo + RAM, if you include all the other system parts like a GPU, SSD, PSU, case, monitor etc the extra $10 or $20 pales into insignificance, really.
reminds me of desktop build , spot the difference and the price differenceThe true oddity, is why do both the 8400 and 8500 both exist with such a ridiculously tiny delta between them?
Yea, but when the 6400 came out, people complained it was clocked too low.Your point is valid. Although, it is closer to $31 difference in MSRP for the 8600.
The problem with your approach though is that it leads to computer inflation. Oh, what is $30 more on a CPU, $20 more on a GPU, $10 more on a SSD, $25 more on a PSU, $5 more on a case, etc. Looked at as a system, each change is meaningless. But then suddenly your $400 system costs $700.
I prefer to analyze each component in isolation. That way my analysis is true for upgrades or whole builds. It also eliminates build inflation. But, I do keep in mind that if one thing is just a measly $10 more, then I can just get it since $10 alone is nothing. Which is why I think the 8500 is a better value than the 8400. The extra 100 MHz to 200 MHz might not be noticed, but it is certainly better. Whereas the $10 will never be noticed.
I was just hoping that the 8600 would be like the 7600 or the 6600 (500 MHz to 600 MHz better than the 7400 and 6400 comparison). Even if you go all the way back to Nehalem, the top non-K i5 has always been at least 400 MHz faster (usually 600 MHz faster) than the bottom i5. Suddenly now it is just 300 MHz. Similarly with the 7700 and 6700, they were just 100 MHz faster than the 7600 and 6600. But now there is a 200 MHz to 300 MHz gap between the 8700 and 8600.
There is only a $10 jump from the 8400 to 8500 because it's only 100MHz faster. The 8600 is $20 more than a 8500 because it is 200MHz faster. Sounds fairly reasonable to me.Your point is valid. Although, it is closer to $31 difference in MSRP for the 8600.
The problem with your approach though is that it leads to computer inflation. Oh, what is $30 more on a CPU, $20 more on a GPU, $10 more on a SSD, $25 more on a PSU, $5 more on a case, etc. Looked at as a system, each change is meaningless. But then suddenly your $400 system costs $700.
I prefer to analyze each component in isolation. That way my analysis is true for upgrades or whole builds. It also eliminates build inflation. But, I do keep in mind that if one thing is just a measly $10 more, then I can just get it since $10 alone is nothing. Which is why I think the 8500 is a better value than the 8400. The extra 100 MHz to 200 MHz might not be noticed, but it is certainly better. Whereas the $10 will never be noticed.
I was just hoping that the 8600 would be like the 7600 or the 6600 (500 MHz to 600 MHz better than the 7400 and 6400 comparison). Even if you go all the way back to Nehalem, the top non-K i5 has always been at least 400 MHz faster (usually 600 MHz faster) than the bottom i5. Suddenly now it is just 300 MHz. Similarly with the 7700 and 6700, they were just 100 MHz faster than the 7600 and 6600. But now there is a 200 MHz to 300 MHz gap between the 8700 and 8600.
My thoughts exactly. Seems kind of redundant to me to have both, unless Intel plans to phase out the 8400.The true oddity, is why do both the 8400 and 8500 both exist with such a ridiculously tiny delta between them?
Based on the 18 core 7980XE I can't see how that can happen, but.... who knows.Hot rumor (literally): Rumors on the twitters that Intel might release LGA 3647 HEDT products. Don't expect it to be cheap but Intel might get some buyers if they released an unlocked 28 core model. It would make a nice space heater I imagine.
We've seen that before.The true oddity, is why do both the 8400 and 8500 both exist with such a ridiculously tiny delta between them?
So again, listed pricing by Intel doesn’t really mean much here.Eug: You can't buy Kabylake Y and M3 chips separately. You can with the 8400 and 8500. Same with the Apollo Lake class of products why they are listed as $160 per chip, but can be sold on a motherboard for less than $100.
Newegg is showing cheaper than MSRP for 8400 and MSRP for 8500.
So again, listed pricing by Intel doesn’t really mean much here.
To use your own example of Newegg.com in the US:For the processors that are sold in places like Newegg, ARK pricing is pretty much the price we pay as consumers.
Note that ARK pricing is a range, not a fixed single number.
Regardless, you can't really use the ARK pricing to determine real-world pricing, esp. with staggered releases.The ark page gives a brief explanation. The pricing difference is because they aren't only sold in boxes. Some are tray pricing, some are in multi-units(like 10), some are box pricing.
You are correct that you can't just go by the ARK pricing, as those are just suggested prices. That said, you are being a bit misleading by making your point using Newegg just days after the 8500 release--before the market has really even settled on a price. For example, some retailers are already getting under the ARK price with the 8500.IOW, the market demand here determines the price. Presumably, the i5-8400 would have been higher priced a few months ago, but now that the i5-8500 and i5-8600 are out, the real world price of the i5-8400 has dropped.
Interestingly it would seem $189 is Wal-Mart’s regular price for the i5-8500 and $179 is a discounted price ($21 off) for the i5-8400... now that the i5-8500 is out.You are correct that you can't just go by the ARK pricing, as those are just suggested prices. That said, you are being a bit misleading by making your point using Newegg just days after the 8500 release--before the market has really even settled on a price. For example, some retailers are already getting under the ARK price with the 8500. That means that before the i5-8500 was out, the i5-8400 was well over $200 there.
Walmart at $179 is $3 under ARK for the 8400:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Intel-Co...151-Desktop-Processor-BX80684I58400/421770568
Walmart at $189 is $3 under ARK for the 8500:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Intel-Co...65W-Desktop-Processor-BX80684i58500/504378797
Newegg, Amazon, and other retailers tend to be a bit slower, but give it about a month and the prices will likely be pretty close to ARK pricing. For example, from the time of true availability for the 8400 in mid-January (it was launched in 2017 but was always out of stock) to mid-February, the Amazon 8400 price dropped steadily to ARK pricing.
https://camelcamelcamel.com/Intel-i...80684i58400/product/B0759FGJ3Q?context=search
As for Newegg pricing, I was just using his own example. He mentioned Newegg pricing, but apparently didn’t actually check Newegg’s prices.
You brought up Newegg, not me. The question was why there was only a $10 disparity and I just pointed out that the price disparity at Newegg was $26. On a ~$200 part, that's more than a 10% price difference.Are you really arguing about a $10-15 price disparity on a chip that costs $200? That's pretty much ARK pricing is what I meant.
For the chips you can't buy boxed like the Apollo Lake chips, the actual selling prices are likely 50% or more off the ARK price.