Not sure why would they charge more either. Upper bound is "professional" 8-core CPU in the form 7820x that has MSRP of $599. So quite easy to see that Intel will price consumer 8 core lower than that. MSRP of $499 sounds just right to me.
Or maybe Intel will decide to strike hard at AMD and price it @ $400, after all this same company was selling i7 920 for ~$300 when they felt they need to challenge AMD.
Core 2 had already surpassed AMD, and i7 920 for the bottom of the line quad core i7 at $300 does not look like value. Remember there was an 930, 940, 950, and 965 at $1000. So not the greatest example of a Intel offerring a value deal.
MSRP was ~280? That CPU offered well over 100% of top chip performance with OC and served people for years to come. In fact in year 2018 AMD is still struggling to clock Ryzens higher than golden D0 920 went.
How far we go with value estimation? Heck by the standards of this forum, inflation adjusted price of 300A Celeron looks bad.
I don't think you can base anything on the 8086K pricing, It was a short run one off special for the anniversary fan boys who would pay more for it.So if we go back far enough, Intel chips were a deal before Overclock locking became a thing is really all that says. Well those days are long gone.
That is completely irrelevant to Intel offering low priced 8 core chip today, which is NOT going to happen.
Just look at the 8086K, $425 MSRP for binned 8700K.
I don't think there is a snowballs chance on Venus, that 9900K 8C CFL is less than $499.
8C CFL will be the top mainstream socket chip at EVERYTHING, and Intel knows it, and will be salivating at the margins it will pull.
I don't think you can base anything on the 8086K pricing, It was a short run one off special for the anniversary fan boys who would pay more for it.
It would have cost less if it were the 8750K, imo.
I don't know anything about the 920. I left PC building in the Prescott days, and came back in around Haswell, and pretty much left again without going past Haswell.You criticize using the 8086K as any kind of basis, but have nothing against using the i7 920?
I don't think you'll see TR2 that low, 1st gen TR maybe. I'd guess $700-$750. I'd like to see a proper workstation board though.I believe TR2 16C 32T will launch at $550-599, this could easily be a direct competitor to Core i7 9900K ($499-550??).
But if 9900K will launch in Q4 2018, then AMD will respond with 7nm ZEN 2 in 1H 2019.
I don't think you'll see TR2 that low, 1st gen TR maybe. I'd guess $700-$750. I'd like to see a proper workstation board though.
Because it is an Intel i7 CPU? How much were the i7-8700/8700k processors at first release?
Well perhaps not the 16C 32T but a 12C 24T TR2 could be launched at $499-550
Yes its OTThis is really comfy thread and sorry if this is OT, but wouldn't the perf/cost delta between the 2600/X and the i5 be quite a bit bigger this round and more significant. Could AMD work down and not up and release a cheaper 8 core there? (Assuming the 1700/1800X wouldn't suffice)
Don't know about the 2300X against the i3-9100 and Intel prob won't release an unlocked i3 for it.
That doesn't make any sense, the 8 core amd processors were giving practically the same performance as a 1000$ 8 core i7 6900k...so 500$ was considered a bargain next to that.
If you didn't want to spend that much you could get virtually the same performance from a 1700x for around 370$...about the same price as Intel's top end 4 core consumer 7700k.
Of course 7700k had no equals in some applications (gaming) but the amd processors had no equals in other apps in that price range either..
Only problem for AMD was there was no need for 3 8 core SKUs with little performance difference between them when overclocked, you can blame the low power process for that.
Thats not the point, the 6900K was not a mainstream market product, the 1800X was, not to mention the whole point of a new tech is to offer better price/perf than an old tech.
The 1800X openned a new tier in price/perf on the mainstream product range, you can now expect both Intel and AMD to start selling the top products there, instead of the <$400...
So of Intel charges $500 for the new top CPU you can pretty much thank the 1800X for that. And i said this on DAY 1 that this may happen.
Not sure if there is a way back now.
That's not how it works, for a start 500$ chips are not mainstream, 1800x was not sold as such and is certainly not a mainstream product.Thats not the point, the 6900K was not a mainstream market product, the 1800X was, not to mention the whole point of a new tech is to offer better price/perf than an old tech.
The 1800X openned a new tier in price/perf on the mainstream product range, you can now expect both Intel and AMD to start selling the top products there, instead of the <$400...
So of Intel charges $500 for the new top CPU you can pretty much thank the 1800X for that. And i said this on DAY 1 that this may happen.
Not sure if there is a way back now.
Single threaded performance is less than 10%, thats NOT much higher. And gaming is now about 7% or less.That's not how it works, for a start 500$ chips are not mainstream, 1800x was not sold as such and is certainly not a mainstream product.
But I get what you mean, it is an SKU based on AMDs mainstream die, the pricing of it is dictated by the market, AMD saw a hole in the market for an 8 core premium product on its mainstream platform, this wouldn't have happened if intel had not kept holding technology improvements back.
The 1800x was a HEDT product with HEDT *lite performance on a mainstream socket, whilst such a product may launch again, it certainly is not mainstream.
Current market would lap up a 8 core coffeelake for 500$, that's because intel has much higher single threaded performance and better gaming performance...next year will be more equal on all fronts and so pricing will determine the top mainstream sku will fall below 400$ imo.
Single threaded performance is less than 10%, thats NOT much higher. And gaming is now about 7% or less.
Except.... AMD had the 16 core threadripper@$750 last week, and I think the 12 core was like 600 something. When Intel comes out with 8 cores, that do you think the 12 core will be priced at ? almost assuredly less than $600. And aside from single core performance, I think that 12 core would beat Intels 8 core. Its not like the last 10 years when it took 8 cores for AMD to beat Intels 4.There are also intangibles like Mind-share. People already pay more for Intel's top 6 core than AMDs top 8 Core, when AMD 8 core beats Intel at most multi-threaded rendering type workloads.
When Intel comes out with it's 8 core that wins at all workloads, they will be able to command an even larger delta.
Except.... AMD had the 16 core threadripper@$750 last week, and I think the 12 core was like 600 something. When Intel comes out with 8 cores, that do you think the 12 core will be priced at ? almost assuredly less than $600. And aside from single core performance, I think that 12 core would beat Intels 8 core. Its not like the last 10 years when it took 8 cores for AMD to beat Intels 4.
Well Gaming is about 10-12% when both are overclocked..which having looked at a large bench suite of games and removing the outliers like CS:GO is very good for ryzen.Single threaded performance is less than 10%, thats NOT much higher. And gaming is now about 7% or less.
I remember reading a couple of reviews early on that must have shown 2700x in a bad light..as I thought it was closer to 20% average.