It's called product segmentation. If the 9700K had HT, then what point would there be for a 9900K?
Performance really looks like it will be going up quite nicely with the 9900K. It will be the undisputed best CPU on a mainstream desktop socket. Intel will charge more for that top end performance, which seems to be the real crux of the issue.
If you want the top chip you will have to pay more. Some people are upset that they will have to pay more for higher performance. They expect performance advances for free.
Even AMD tried to sell the 1800X for $500 when they thought they had the top chip. It's the nature of business, you price your product at what you think the market will bear, to maximize your profit.
If everyone thinks like you, that it's disappointing and too expensive, then it won't sell and there will be oversupply and discounts.
If OTOH, many people think the improved performance is quite good, and are willing to pay the price, then there will be short supply and even price increases.
If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really
689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.
Yes, it is product segmentation.
But up to this year, Intel's only i9 desktop processors were the i9-7900X line, which was meant to be really powerful, with at least 10 cores and 20 threads. In the 8th gen, there was an i9 on the mobile sector (the i9-8950HK), but that did not prevent Intel from having 6 cores and 12 threads in i7 processors as well.
Now, in the 9th gen, Intel decided to create a new segment of desktop processors, just to put the i9-9900K there, the only one with HT. Two years ago, the i9 was the processor for enthusiasts, and now it's the mainstream. Intel is downgrading the i9 while at the same time imposing a price premium to i7 customers.
The i9-7980XE is still 20% faster than the i9-9900K, despite having a 2-year old architecture. As there are no rumors of an i9-9950X or i9-9980X, I guess we will not see more cores/threads this generation. How could I not be disappointed? The top dog of the upcoming generation is still slower than the best one from two generations behind. You can say that i9-7980XE had 18 cores, and the i9-9900K has 8. Well, then Intel should put more cores in the i9-9900K.
I do not expect performance advances for free. I just expect to pay the same price for the technology of today that I was paying yesterday for the technology of yesterday.
Intel was not like this in the past. When it released the 80486 DX back in 1989, it was clocked at 20 and 25 MHz. A year later, in 1990, Intel introduced the 33 MHz version. In 1991, Intel introduced the 50 MHz version. And the 80486 DX2, clocked at 66 MHz, was released in 1992. In 1993, the Pentium was released, clocked at 60 and 66 MHz; and in 1994, a 100 MHz version hit the market.
Intel used to deliver real performance increases every year, of more than 30% year after year, and that is what moves the computer industry. It is not increase in performance for free; you are paying for this every time you buy a new processor. You cannot ugrade your current processor; you have to buy another one, and pay the full price.
It happens in every tech sector. The iPhone 8 is 77% faster than the iPhone 7, which is 47% faster than the iPhone 6s, which is 65% faster than the iPhone 6, which is 10% faster than the iPhone 5s, which is 77% faster than the iPhone 5. And they all sold at about the same price points. Everybody expects technology at the same price level to increase every year.
Intel is not delivering this anymore. Intel is charging a premium for advances that should be at the same price level, while offering a mere 5% of performance increase at the same price point. Very disappointing. Should Apple behave like Intel, the iPhone should be selling at USD 4,500 or more these days.
If the i9-9900K sells for USD 450, it may sell well and meet Intel's expectations. But again, Intel is failing to see the big picture here. This strategy of underdelivering has a cost to Intel.
AMD's processors are clearly weaker in single-core processing. However, AMD impressed, and gained market share, with the Ryzen, because it delivering what Intel wouldn't. AMD put more cores in the processors, and allowed for multi-threading even at the lower-cost ones. Intel has the chance to destroy AMD, and it is throwing it away. Should Intel deliver HT in all i5 and i7 processors, it would be a killer. And if it launched a 12 or 16-core i9, it could have the potential of topping the AMD Threadripper. Intel is just giving the chance to AMD to gain market share and to improve its own processors.
Intel is also facing competition from Qualcomm, which is putting its Snapdragon processor inside laptops. They are still weak, but the ARM architecture is improving a lot year after year. Intel is threatening Qualcomm with lawsuits, as it wants to keep behaving as a monopolist. Intel is only giving Qualcomm the chance to best it at its own game.
So, good short-term strategy for Intel. As for the long-term, we'll see.