Intel Alder Lake CPU pricing revealed by Amazon UK

[Tabbykatze]

In all honestly, I'll give Intel a good hiding until they've paid back every cent of their anti compete ruling. I'll keep being overtly critical of them while employing and bringing back people who were party to their actions that were ruled on during that time.

I will continue to see AMD as becoming a competitor to Intel and not an underdog as they grow which means jumpy bouncy around each other pricing.

Until AMD actually gives recourse to be shirty with them, i will never sit on Cats fence. But we all have our opinions and boxes and Cat may have been right in his predictions but i just don't agree with the reasoning he is accusing them of. I do agree that businesses don't actually care about end users but on a scale of eho cares the least, it goes AMD then tied between Intel and Nvidia.

Ah well, it's all a bit of fun ain't it

[thewelshbrummie]

Not impressed (but not surprised) by these prices if accurate and consindering the reputation Intel has at the moment it's not a good idea to be increasing prices this much. As much as I like Intel CPUs £791 for the 12900K makes no sense against £660 for the 5950X. Same for the 12700K at £550 - yes I got my 10700K at a significant discount but having paid £201 including US sales tax there's no way Intel will get me to upgrade anytime soon with that pricing.

I thought that i5 CPUs had been around the £250 mark pretty much for all of the last decade since Sandy Bridge, so I've had a look at old invoices for the CPUs I've bought over the last decade. I'm surprised to find the 4670K I ordered was £155 from Scan back in May 2013, with the old mailing list email I have from Scan with (I assume) launch pricing showing the 4770K being £275.

Going further back, I paid £233 for my Q9650 in Feb 2009. I remember that being more than expected as the exchange rate against USD went against the £ so bumped the price up by around £30.

I guess that since Coffee Lake the i5-K CPU has likely been in the £250 ballpark. Still such an increase doesn't seem justifiable unless the extra slow cores really boost performance significantly, which I seriously doubt will be the case.

[Spud1]

As much as I like Intel CPUs £791 for the 12900K makes no sense against £660 for the 5950X.

We're still looking at RRP levels here - and the RRP for a 5950X is £749, so £791 isn't a huge amount more, assuming the leaks are true and it is indeed a faster chip for general applications.

That doesn't defend the stupid high pricing here - even putting aside the top end products that are not really meant for home use, we're still looking at £550 for the better option, which is still mad.

We'll have to wait for the reviews to see how, and if, they can really justify this kind of pricing.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I didn't really get the double standards of the price creeping that AMD did either. It's kind of disheartening the state of CPU and GPU market now.

Exactly. Too many enthusiasts just don't get why prices go up. PCMR enthusiasts keep wondering why the GPU market and now the CPU market is going that way,and seemingly have forgotten this sort of stuff has happened before(think the Athlon 64 and P4 EE). People shouldn't cheerlead increased prices for any company.

For example,look at how the Core i5 10600K was £250~£280,when a Ryzen 5 3600 was well under £200. All the people who went bought a Core i5 justified to Intel they could charge so much for a 6C CPU.

It also told AMD that if they beat that 6C CPU with their own one they could charge as much or more. So all the people who bought the Ryzen 5 5600X justified a £280 6C CPU.

Now,its probably possible a Core i5 12600K will beat a Ryzen 5 5600X in single core performance,so Intel market research has told them a Ryzen 5 5600X sold enough at £280,so lets try £300+ and see if it sticks.

If it sticks,then expect AMD to see if they can charge more for a Ryzen 5 6660X 6C CPU. Then if the Core i5 13600K 6C beats the Ryzen 5 6600X 6C CPU,marketing will see if £350+ is doable.

It was the same thing which happened with quad cores,Intel pushed the street prices higher and higher,such that you had £350 4C/8T CPUs at one point. What if you wanted a cheaper quad core,well get the previous generation one which was a bit cheaper because the old RRP was cheaper(hence why you rarely got deep discounting of previous generations).

The reason why it worked is because people pay each higher increment of pricing at every generation,and then ignore anyone who points out price escalation is a bad thing. The moment people stop buying,lo and behold the prices drop.

This is the same issue with the GPU market - both Nvidia and AMD don't even directly compete each other in pricing tiers. They now are launching in-between tiers,and since Turing they have made streetprices high enough,then all the old stuff sells out at minimal deep discounting.

Until AMD actually gives recourse to be shirty with them, i will never sit on Cats fence. But we all have our opinions and boxes and Cat may have been right in his predictions but i just don't agree with the reasoning he is accusing them of. I do agree that businesses don't actually care about end users but on a scale of eho cares the least, it goes AMD then tied between Intel and Nvidia.

Ah well, it's all a bit of fun ain't it

These companies are all essentially run by the same time of Wall Street types now - look at what funds invest in AMD,Intel and Nvidia. They have a lot more influence than you think over what they can do. For example you know that some of the biggest investors now in AMD,Intel and Nvidia are the same lot,right?? Vanguard Group Inc,Blackrock Inc and Fmr LLC who own nearly 20% between them of each company?? Lots of common "funds" own enough stock in all these companies,and have significant influence on what these companies do. Its what is driving this "common" sort of tactics.

I remember what AMD did with the Athlon 64 - they went from value champions to pretty much pricing as high as Intel,and even bifurcating platforms if you wanted extra features. Before that they had one platform and didn't try locking down features,etc....that is what Intel did. Once they hit the bigtime,it all went away until they fell behind. Again,who do you think is pushing this? Their investors.

AMD is very much more focussed on financials like Intel/Nvidia because the investors are pushing them. Zen3 higher pricing meant Zen2 sold out at near RRP,or the existing street price. Intel priced RKL higher than CML,hence CML didn't need massive discounting past its current streetprice to sell out. Look at how CML CPUs now have risen in price??

Look at the GPU market - both Nvidia/AMD are doing this. Make the new models cost more for their performance jump,hence the older "slower" models look "cheaper" so sell out at the current streetprice. This is what Turing did - it enabled vast stocks of Pascal GPUs made for mining to be sold with minimal discounts.

Its all about margin increase - the only way those prices don't get higher and higher,is if people stop buying at those prices.The issue is PCMR enthusiasts just keep throwing more and more money at relatively less and less.

We are essentially to blame somewhat for all of this. If ADL sells well at its current pricing,then expect the 6000 series AMD CPUs,and Intel 13000 CPUs,to cost even more because market research will say the price elascity in the market exists!

[Iota]

Too many enthusiasts just don't get why prices go up.

Increase profit margins, make shareholders happy, gain more investment, increase market share.

Think this sums up how it works, constantly repeating cycle.

[Tabbykatze]

These companies are all essentially run by the same time of Wall Street types now - look at what funds invest in AMD,Intel and Nvidia. They have a lot more influence than you think over what they can do. For example you know that some of the biggest investors now in AMD,Intel and Nvidia are the same lot,right?? Vanguard Group Inc,Blackrock Inc and Fmr LLC who own nearly 20% between them of each company?? Lots of common "funds" own enough stock in all these companies,and have significant influence on what these companies do. Its what is driving this "common" sort of tactics.

I remember what AMD did with the Athlon 64 - they went from value champions to pretty much pricing as high as Intel,and even bifurcating platforms if you wanted extra features. Before that they had one platform and didn't try locking down features,etc....that is what Intel did. Once they hit the bigtime,it all went away until they fell behind. Again,who do you think is pushing this? Their investors.

AMD is very much more focussed on financials like Intel/Nvidia because the investors are pushing them. Zen3 higher pricing meant Zen2 sold out at near RRP,or the existing street price. Intel priced RKL higher than CML,hence CML didn't need massive discounting past its current streetprice to sell out. Look at how CML CPUs now have risen in price??

Look at the GPU market - both Nvidia/AMD are doing this. Make the new models cost more for their performance jump,hence the older "slower" models look "cheaper" so sell out at the current streetprice. This is what Turing did - it enabled vast stocks of Pascal GPUs made for mining to be sold with minimal discounts.

Its all about margin increase - the only way those prices don't get higher and higher,is if people stop buying at those prices.The issue is PCMR enthusiasts just keep throwing more and more money at relatively less and less.

We are essentially to blame somewhat for all of this. If ADL sells well at its current pricing,then expect the 6000 series AMD CPUs,and Intel 13000 CPUs,to cost even more because market research will say the price elascity in the market exists!

We're getting into a vast new realm of conspiracy here.

Anyway, I don't blame us all, just you because you didn't do enough to stop it happening

[kompukare]

We're getting into a vast new realm of conspiracy here.

Anyway, I don't blame us all, just you because you didn't do enough to stop it happening

Well, it's all very well complaining about the weak-willed who bought those overpriced Titans driving up the prices for everyone...

...But what about the weak-willed ones who bought £400 FE 3060Ti when x60 class cards used to cost around £250?

They're driving the prices up for everyone too!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

We're getting into a vast new realm of conspiracy here.

Anyway, I don't blame us all, just you because you didn't do enough to stop it happening

What vast conspiracy - have you literally been asleep for the last decade?? This is how Wall Street works - people defended Zen3 price increases,and pooed-pooed me,and what I said happened,just like all my longterm predictions of various price increases going back to what I said about what Titan class GPUs would do the market. Lisa Su cares more about those funds,then she cares about you. Same as JHH and any Intel CEO.

Those large investment funds,have significant holdings in Intel,Nvidia and AMD(they are all listed). They are the ones pushing for higher and higher margins. The whole concept of Intel,Nvidia or AMD being "any better" than each other means nothing. That AMD went when Jerry Sanders left. That is a guy who genuinely cared more about his employees than profits:

"People first, products and profit will follow!"

Do you realise this was the reason AMD went south before the Core 2?? Their own CEO(Hector Ruiz) was not only implicated with the Galleon insider trading scandal,paid OTT for ATI but also he prioritised margins so much,he milked AMD 90NM Athlon CPUs over pushing to AMD 65NM and jacked prices up to make the large investors happier. They virtually ignored the Core,so ended up not only having a rushed 65NM process,but nothing to fight the Core2.

The fact is you can't emotionally look at AMD as "different" to Intel or Nvidia. Intel and Nvidia did what they did as they were at the top. AMD did the same when they were at the top with the Athlon 64 and so did ATI. Its no different than people moaning at Apple being XYZ and then defending Google,Samsung or others doing it.

We had people like Rollo on this forum who were paid by companies who defended price rises,yet people don't get paid and know do it for free! If AMD is doing the same as Intel/Nvidia they are no different now. They are all the bad guys in this story!

Well, it's all very well complaining about the weak-willed who bought those overpriced Titans driving up the prices for everyone...

...But what about the weak-willed ones who bought £400 FE 3060Ti when x60 class cards used to cost around £250?

They're driving the prices up for everyone too!

Like the weak willed ones,who are desperate to bury what AMD did with the last few years of prices rises,and try to attack Intel and Nvidia,whilst destroying the entry level/mainstream market since last year? So AMD thinks its fine to rise its own CPU/GPU prices,meaning the value orientated person might find lower prices in overpriced Intel/Nvidia products. Or the ones whose effing GPU decides to go kaput,and you end up having to put up with using an ancient faulty one for months. Thank you AMD so much for being the gamers friend. Oh,wait we should buy a console?

You mean like the £120 Core i5 10400F,against the £160+ Ryzen 5 3600 this year,or Nvidia still selling sub £200 GPUs like the GTX1050TI and GTX1650. Sub £80 Core i3 10100F and no AMD equivalent. So it seems AMD thinks value orientated people are not worthy anymore:
https://www.techspot.com/news/89822-...cpus-over.html

By on purpose retreating from lower priced markets,and leaving it to Intel/Nvidia AMD is now the main reason these markets are starting to go kaput.

Try looking for a "value" prebuilt gaming desktop or laptop. AMD dGPUs are barely seen - an RX6600XT desktop system costs the same as an RTX3060TI. RTX3060 laptops can be had for £800~£900,and I have seen RTX2060 laptops for less. AMD is nowhere.

I wonder why the RTX3060TI and RTX3070 FE were considered "value" by 2020/2021 standards. I know why because AMD decided to launch overpriced stuff like the RX6600XT/RX6700XT,with hardly any reference models. Instant best value awards from reviewers for the Nvidia products. At least the RTX3060TI uses a die similar to a GTX970/GTX1070 class GPU(395MM2). The RX6600XT uses a Polaris class sized GPU(237MM2) with a peasant level 128 bit memory controller and it was over £330.

AMD making the 237MM2 RX6600XT at its idiotic price,Fury X at the same price as a GTX980TI(but slower),etc. What about the 250MM2 RX5700XT?? A rebadged RX690 which was priced close to a RTX2070 with less features and a tiny die.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/wp-content/...comparison.jpg

The 250MM2 Polaris successor sold for nearly £400?? Oh,because Nvidia jacked up prices,AMD thought lets "jebait them" and join in. The RX5600XT sold for nearly £300(which only happened because of the RTX2060),and AMD releasing rubbish like the RX5500XT for £200. So for two generations a row,AMD has done even less than Nvidia for mainstream buyers. Nvidia,can't believe its luck!

So Nvidia had better featured products(GTX1650/GTX1660 series). Old Polaris stock had worse power consumption,and a much worse feature support too.

So if you want to find who screwed the £250 GPU over - well you need to point a big finger at AMD too. Oh,but its all Nvidia,right? RX480 8GB costing the same as a GTX1060 6GB? The joke pricing of the RX460,meant Nvidia could plonk in the poorly priced GTX1050 too.

What did AMD do to actually make the mainstream market better since the R9 290/390/Polaris eras?? They just joined in.

On forums you could see the massive about turn from some very prominent pro-AMD people,who suddenly considered price was irrelevant.

I saw this over a decade ago with AMD. Until the Athlon XP they were all for value for money,etc. The moment the Athlon 64 came along,suddenly £1000 CPUs were all fine,having 2 platforms,ie,socket 754 and socket 939 were fine,etc.

None of them really care for value for money at all - its only because when AMD is behind that is their major selling point.The moment AMD is ahead,value for money gets thrown out of the window,and its all about performance. The moment AMD is behind its all about value for money,performance be damned!

The people who defended AMD jacking up prices,so make your bed and be fine with Intel and Nvidia doing it too!

Increase profit margins, make shareholders happy, gain more investment, increase market share.

Think this sums up how it works, constantly repeating cycle.

Exactly until the crash happens when they priced too high,and the market saturation point happens and they tumble(too big to fail). Its why Japan,South Korea,Taiwan,etc all have destroyed a number of our industries. Our companies got so focussed on margins,they ended up reducing longer term R and D and fumbling. One of the characteristics is when they end up not bothering with huge "lower margin" markets or making a minimum effort in them. Intel come to mind? If they had actually not milked the market,AMD wouldn't have got a foot in. They ignored a low cost chip for Apple,hampered Atom platforms,etc. Its how Japanese car companies went up in the ranks. Its how IBM went down in the ranks. China is doing the same,copying the same tactics of Japan,South Korea and Taiwan.

Apple and Samsung went that way,and formed essentially a cartel and stopped innovating with cameras,etc and priced stuff too high. As I told many here,be weary of Chinese companies as I could see them licensing a lot of stuff Apple and Samsung CBA to do(better cameras being one of them) and going in with lower margins. They have well over 50% of the smartphone market now starting from near zero. Its how Huawei got so much infrastructure work until Trump thumped them(has a few parallels to what happened to Toshiba during the 1980s trade war with Japan).

[Saracen999]

I've certainly done a u-turn on prices but, and this just relates to me, it's because circumstances changed. A few years ago, the chances of me being willing to spend £500+ on a CPU, never mind the same again or more, on a GPU, were zero. My needs changed.

As for AMD v Intel, personally I don't care. Right now the best bet for me looks to be AMD so that's what I'm looking at but if Intel leapfrog AMD (not holding my breath) before I commit to buying, I'll switch without a second thought.

I have exactly as much brand loyalty to any hardware manufacturer as they have to me - none. Well, except Canon for camera gear but that's because once you commit to lenses etc, it's a very expensive and irritating business jumping ship. it's pragmatism, not loyalty.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've certainly done a u-turn on prices but, and this just relates to me, it's because circumstances changed. A few years ago, the chances of me being willing to spend £500+ on a CPU, never mind the same again or more, on a GPU, were zero. My needs changed.

As for AMD v Intel, personally I don't care. Right now the best bet for me looks to be AMD so that's what I'm looking at but if Intel leapfrog AMD (not holding my breath) before I commit to buying, I'll switch without a second thought.

I have exactly as much brand loyalty to any hardware manufacturer as they have to me - none. Well, except Canon for camera gear but that's because once you commit to lenses etc, it's a very expensive and irritating business jumping ship. it's pragmatism, not loyalty.

This is why I really don't understand people calling out Intel/Nvidia for doing certain things,then when AMD does it,an about turn. AMD marketing attacked Intel for blocking CPU upgrades,then tried to go back on the B450/X470 Zen3 promises,until the bad PR forced an about turn. Then they decided to outprice Intel,and then remove most of the stock coolers(like Intel) and stopped bundling the higher end stock coolers(like Intel).

The same with their GPUs. They are less feature rich than the Nvidia ones(but do offer more VRAM),have worse RT performance,etc. Yet for the most part since Polaris have priced as close to Nvidia as possible.

Yet people are quite happy to put a foot into Nvidia and Intel - but then what about AMD also joining in?? This "good guy","underdog" marketing AMD has put,is just that.....marketing.

But even during the Athlon 64 era,where were all the people having a go at AMD literally doing an Intel?? They split the Athlon 64 onto socket 754,939,AM2 and QuadFX. Before they only had Socket A...for years. They even pushed back on 65NM,to keep selling more profitable 90NM CPUs,just because Intel was barely there with the P4. Intel might have been bribing Dell,etc but AMD was quite happy to milk the market too!

Then you had so many + versions of sockets,which meant you might need to get a new motherboard too.

In the last 20 years when AMD/ATI have been top dog,they have simply done an Intel/Nvidia and priced the products highly when they feel they can.

[badass]

This "good guy","underdog" marketing AMD has put,is just that.....marketing.

Yes! Exactly!

All every company is doing is setting the price at a level that:
They can afford to sell at.
Maximises short term gains without causing longer term damage (hence why FE prices remain where they are despite them selling out in minutes)

[Saracen999]

Yes! Exactly!

All every company is doing is setting the price at a level that:
They can afford to sell at.
Maximises short term gains without causing longer term damage (hence why FE prices remain where they are despite them selling out in minutes)

It's not, IMHO, necessarily about short-term gains, or at least, not short-term profit. Companies can have other strategies, like using any competitive edge to build market share.

But ultimately, my operating principle is that everything companies do, whether it's cutting costs to max'ing profits, is about the best interests of the company. They aren't there as social services. It's just how they go about serving their best interests. Some are more short-termist than others, and some are more aggressive at it than others. If they provide superb customer service, well ... great, but they do it because their strategy is that great customer service is in their best interests. Others ollow a more 'pile it highm sell it cheap' strategy, but either of those and all the other variants are about their best interest. It's our job, as consumers, to decide what we prefer. Where to buy if you want great service might well be different from where to buy if you want lowest price.

[sjaxkingpin187]

It seems really shady (even for Intel) to be marketing those core counts to PC ppl when some of them aren't even full performance cores. Leave that crap for the mobile boys.