well the new consoles will make every desktop gaming System look overpriced , even AMD CPU ...680CAD.... ROFL... what a joke... who the hell would buy that!? It is the price of the new consoles....
Look at the TDP. The 10700 has a 65W TDP while the 10700K is 125W. That's why the 10700 has such a lower base clock. Lower TDP chips typically cost more.The base clock differences between the Core i7-10700K and Core i7-10700 are so large. Why is the Core i7-10700 not at least 1/3 cheaper? Weird. Intel is going to have to work on pricing.
Consoles operate on a different pricing structure. At best, Sony and MS will be breaking even at launch, likely they will be losing money on each one they sell. They make their money on PS+/Xbox Live, software and accessories. Intel and AMD can't sell CPU's at a loss and make the money up elsewhere.The console prices exposed the fact that they are (intel and AMD) selling us overpriced CPU .. more than double the Price.
What breathing room? Intel grossly under-reports the TDPs of their processors. As has been pointed out, even the "65 watt" 10900 may be drawing around 200 watts under load at its standard boost clocks, significantly more than the 3900X. It's not like anyone will be running this processor locked to it's base clocks, since there would be no point in spending $500 just to underclock the processor to match the performance of other chips costing hundreds of dollars less.In the Core i9-10900's defense, the Ryzen 9 3900X does have a 105W TDP so it has more breathing room.
The Core i9-10900K, which is the flagship Comet Lake-S chip, is rumored to feature a 125W TDP so it would be more fair to compare it to the Ryzen 9 3900X.
Base clocks simply don't matter much, unless the processor is overheating, which is generally not the case for a properly functioning desktop system. I'm not even sure why they even bother mentioning them here. Under any sort of load, you will be seeing the boost clocks, and for that, those processors should perform rather close to one another at stock clocks. There is only around a 4% difference in boost clocks between an i7-9700 and a 9700K, for example.The base clock differences between the Core i7-10700K and Core i7-10700 are so large. Why is the Core i7-10700 not at least 1/3 cheaper? Weird. Intel is going to have to work on pricing.
Well, of course they'll be a wash in today's games. The 10700K should effectively perform similar to a 9900K. The main thing you will be gaining at the i7-level will be SMT to better handle heavily-multithreaded workloads, which is the only thing that really differentiates the current i9s from the current i7s. So long as the game has enough threads to work with, which pretty much all of today's games should on an 8-core, 8-thread or 6-core, 12-thread processor, you are unlikely to see any perceptible performance difference between a 9700K and a 10700K, unless perhaps one is streaming their gaming session, where those extra threads might come in handy. And maybe future games a couple years or so down the line may benefit more from them.I look forward to seeing how well the 10700K does relative to the 9700K/9900K...; if it is indeed virtual 'wash' gaming-wise, then, ho -hum, they should at least cut prices by $100!
This is the locked 10900 which has a TDP of 65W. It is not the unlocked 10900K or 10900KF that have TDP of 125W. Also that 220W figure is for prime 95 small FFTs power virus. Under AIDA64 or other intense real workload (Blender etc), the cpu power consumption (not total system from the wall) will probably be around 145W for the stock 10900 (power limits removed) and 170W for the stock 10900K (power limits removed). And for the record the 3900X actually pulls ~140W in Handbrake and ~145W in AIDA64."In the Core i9-10900's defense, the Ryzen 9 3900X does have a 105W TDP so it has more breathing room. "
Are you trolling Mr Zhiye Liu? 10900 pull over 220W under full load while 3900x pull max 130
170W is 9900k, this trash here has extra 2 cores so 200W+ my boyThese prices are with Canada’s universal sales tax added on. Canada’s universal sales tax is 5% (and then there is an additional 0-10% sales tax depending on the province which most retailers add when you get to the checkout and input your zip code). There is also some price gouging by the retailer. In any case according to a retailer in Netherlands the MSRPs are the following:
10900K – 517USD
10900KF – 490USD
10700K – 400USD
10700KF – 372USD
10600K – 272USD
10600KF – 243USD
By the way these cpus were set to launch on March 30th but due to the current pandemic situation the release has been postponed (and they are likely to get announced on April 30th). Rocket lake will likely also launch by the end of the year but Comet lake will sort of continue co-existing with it as the value option, especially from the motherboard's point of view (no PCIe4, fewer DMI lanes, etc) as there would be little point to buy a Z590 board to put a 10700K or 10900K - you would buy a Z490 instead.
This is the locked 10900 which has a TDP of 65W. It is not the unlocked 10900K or 10900KF that have TDP of 125W. Also that 220W figure is for prime 95 small FFTs power virus. Under AIDA64 or other intense real workload (Blender etc), the cpu power consumption (not total system from the wall) will probably be around 145W for the stock 10900 (power limits removed) and 170W for the stock 10900K (power limits removed). And for the record the 3900X actually pulls ~140W in Handbrake and ~145W in AIDA64.
Apparently, you aren’t reading the reviews of this very website! Click below on the spoiler for the graphs:170W is 9900k, this trash here has extra 2 cores so 200W+ my boy
As spongiemaster already said: It is more likely to be the way that they "don't want to", it is not that "they cannot" compete on price. Obviously market pressure is still not high enough to force them to lower retail prices (pricing for OEMs is a completely different story). Additionally Intel has the complete production chain under its own control, therefore it is most likely, that they can produce cheaper and more efficiently than AMD (at least for consumer products), therefore generating a higher margin (and they will keep it that way as long as possible; AMDs market share is still small and their production capacity is limited).So Intel can’t compete on price at all ...
I have a 9900KF and I am hoping to upgrade to a 10900K or 10900KF. There are quite a number of us. Market is still very much there assuming Intel can produce enough and the price doesn't ballon like it did for either 8 or 9th gen(At launch couldn't find a 9900K and then the price shot up to $750 from retailers.) At $500 there is going to be healthy demand for a 10C Intel CPU that has potential to hit 5.3GHz all core with sufficient cooling. Plenty of people wanting just max frequency(until maybe Zen 3...)While there will still be people who will go for the fastest Intel chips, but personally, Intel's pricing is way off the mark considering people are just buying higher clocked versions of Coffee Lake. At the top end, the 10c/20t chip is unlikely to sell much since people with the older 9900K typically don't see much need for multicore performance. If multicore is important, clearly AMD is the better choice with 12 or 16 cores.
Should AMD decide to cut prices further due to the impending release of the Zen 3 chip later this year, this will be a nail in the coffin for Intel's top end chip. I get the point that they do not want to be engaged in a price war, but either way, while they get to maintain their margins, they are selling lesser chips. OEMs will still get Intel chips, but note that mid/ low end chips take the lion's share of the units sold.