Intel plans to cut CPU prices by up to 15 per cent

Quote:

---

8th and 9th gen Intel CPUs will have prices slashed in response to 3rd gen AMD Ryzen.

---

Read more.

More like 50% for 7980X.

You know what, with the way the intel has been losing performance with things like spectre while AMD hasn't lost as much I'm pretty sure I'd pick AMD even with Intel having a price drop.

With this being intel that the 'up to 15%' will probably only really impact the cheaper ones.

Unless the supply constraints are fixed, will this even matter?

Title should read "Intel forced to cut prices"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

Unless the supply constraints are fixed, will this even matter?

---

Intel claimed that they were fixed. Did they lie to us? Say it isn't so! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Intel claimed that they were fixed. Did they lie to us? Say it isn't so! :)

---

Lolol, yup they will persist through Q3 giving AMD potentially uncontested sales for 3 months...

A 15% drop across the board would make the stack-up compare better to AMD:
- The 9900 will end up with a slight premium over the 3800X, which is fair enough (the 9900 would do well to avoid comparisons with the 3900X)
- The 9700 ends up roughly equivalent to the 3700X, which makes more sense (but is overpriced given the lack of hyperthreading)
- The 9600 slots in between the 3600 and 3600X, again a fairer comparison (same criticism as the 9700 applies)

People often seem to forget that AMD's processors (usually) support ECC memory. Thus the Ryzen series covers not only the application range of regular Core iX desktop processors but also that of the lower-end workstation/server processors, particularly the Xeon E series. Somehow, I can't see Intel dropping prices on processors in this lucrative area, especially since you need a particular chipset to go with them.

Still, Intel even considering price drops as an answer to the Ryzen 3000 series reeks of desperation. Apparently, bad mouthing them wasn't enough after all.

First the price rises claiming shortage, now they "slash" prices... basically back to what they where?

still buying AMD. jog on intel :) Want to change my mind? Release a tool to update the microcode fixes on the i7-870 series. you have the microcode fix, now help average users update it when the mobo company isn't interested.

I'm wondering why they'd need/want to drop prices if they're really supply-constrained? It doesn't make sense. Either they're not any more, or they're close to being even and this is intended to keep it that way?

I get that some dies may be less constrained than others but many of Intel's products are binned variants of only a few base dies.

Unless I'm overlooking something else of course?

Thank you AMD, well done. Now we need you to do the right job on nvidia xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watercooled

I'm wondering why they'd need/want to drop prices if they're really supply-constrained? It doesn't make sense. Either they're not any more, or they're close to being even and this is intended to keep it that way?

I get that some dies may be less constrained than others but many of Intel's products are binned variants of only a few base dies.

Unless I'm overlooking something else of course?

---

They might be supply-constrained, but if the competion is being perceived as faster and cheaper, it might well solve their supply-constraint issue .... by having the bottom drop out of demand. Then, the constraint won't be supply, but how to shift under-performing (comparatively) and over-priced stock.

The way I see it is that Intel have been .... milking it ...., that is to say, charging what the market will bear, and now it'll no longer bear it. There's a contrarian streak in me that always prefers to support the underdog, not least because the existence and competitiveness of the underdog is about the only thing keeping the market leader's pricing even halfway-honest.

I'd decided my next system purchase was going to be AMD well before the current generation, and just hadn't got around to doing it. 15% off Intel doesn't even come close to changing that. Frankly, 50% probably wouldn't, either. I'll just buy the AMD option that looks, to me, to provide optimum bang-for-buck, which will probably be mid-range, somewhere.

Aside from being the underdog, AMD is also delivering more cores per £, that aren't riddled with security bugs that kills performance when patched.

It will be interesting to see which publications do their benchmarks with fully updated Windows for all systems i.e. with security patches applied for Intel and those scheduler updates AMD mentioned. No doubt there will be some making excuses why they're still testing with an old version 'for consistency with old benchmarks' or some nonsense along those lines.

Doesn't Intel still have that clause that reviews/benchmarks need to be done without the security patches installed?

Or did they remove that over backlash?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

Doesn't Intel still have that clause that reviews/benchmarks need to be done without the security patches installed?

Or did they remove that over backlash?

---

I believe it is still there.

Could be worse, I was looking for benchmarks for running Intel's Quartus FPGA compiling software to get an idea on what would be the best CPU & ram configuration to get for a build server. Such benchmarks are banned entirely under the terms of installing the software. When it takes an hour to do a compile it would be really nice to shave even a small percentage off of that, so thanks Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I believe it is still there.

Could be worse, I was looking for benchmarks for running Intel's Quartus FPGA compiling software to get an idea on what would be the best CPU & ram configuration to get for a build server. Such benchmarks are banned entirely under the terms of installing the software. When it takes an hour to do a compile it would be really nice to shave even a small percentage off of that, so thanks Intel.

---

I find that so scummy, means people are not allowed to establish the baseline of what they should be using the get the best.

It means they can say you should have a W3175X and you have no real way of being able to say "nah mate, get prodded".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen999

They might be supply-constrained, but if the competion is being perceived as faster and cheaper, it might well solve their supply-constraint issue .... by having the bottom drop out of demand. Then, the constraint won't be supply, but how to shift under-performing (comparatively) and over-priced stock.

The way I see it is that Intel have been .... milking it ...., that is to say, charging what the market will bear, and now it'll no longer bear it. There's a contrarian streak in me that always prefers to support the underdog, not least because the existence and competitiveness of the underdog is about the only thing keeping the market leader's pricing even halfway-honest.

I'd decided my next system purchase was going to be AMD well before the current generation, and just hadn't got around to doing it. 15% off Intel doesn't even come close to changing that. Frankly, 50% probably wouldn't, either. I'll just buy the AMD option that looks, to me, to provide optimum bang-for-buck, which will probably be mid-range, somewhere.

---

I wouldn't consider intel until they stop pretending that the core architecture is gods gift to gamers, and start matching AMD core for core (including virtual cores). Right now the entire intel product stack feels more like a marketing trick to make the top end look less ridiculous and less like products worth buying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I believe it is still there.

Could be worse, I was looking for benchmarks for running Intel's Quartus FPGA compiling software to get an idea on what would be the best CPU & ram configuration to get for a build server. Such benchmarks are banned entirely under the terms of installing the software. When it takes an hour to do a compile it would be really nice to shave even a small percentage off of that, so thanks Intel.

---

Are there any other options for FPGA software that don't hate their customers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabbykatze

I find that so scummy, means people are not allowed to establish the baseline of what they should be using the get the best.

It means they can say you should have a W3175X and you have no real way of being able to say "nah mate, get prodded".

---

*shrug*, Intel annoyed me, I went for a Ryzen 2600. A 2600X would have been better as large part of an FPGA compile is still single threaded, but I needed a lot of ECC ram on a limited budget.

I gather these compiles really like big L3 cache so I will be interested to see what a 3600X can do when they come out, but if I benchmark that I can't tell anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xlucine

Are there any other options for FPGA software that don't hate their customers?

---

lol, probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

*shrug*, Intel annoyed me, I went for a Ryzen 2600. A 2600X would have been better as large part of an FPGA compile is still single threaded, but I needed a lot of ECC ram on a limited budget.

I gather these compiles really like big L3 cache so I will be interested to see what a 3600X can do when they come out, but if I benchmark that I can't tell anyone.

---

Maybe a pseudonym? Oh, look a leak from "SachayswithLinux", woner who that is!