News Full 10th-Gen Comet Lake CPU Tray Pricing Listed

[JoBalz]

It is vexing that even with competition Intel hasn't been pushed to drop prices. Seriously, an i5 for near as makes no difference $300? It is basically an i7 8086K with a slightly higher base clock. That CPU is 2 years old at this point. The same number of cores and threads for only a modest drop in price?... Which isn't even really applicable because the 8086K was just an 8700K (which is almost 3 years old) that was binned and factory overclocked! What are you doing Intel!? You've basically just changed the name and kept the price! Performance is supposed to become more affordable over time! Intel thinks that in 2 years almost nothing has changed in regards to performance per dollar! This i5 10600K should be $260 tops! I doubt the addition of the integrated graphics makes up for the price vs the KF version.

Not to mention i3 that is in what used to be the bottom of the i5 territory. I'm shocked at the price of i5s now, which is why i just bought a Ryzen 5 3600X for my new system. I'm tired of paying high prices for Intel CPUs which continue to sell at nearly their original price long after being replaced by CPUs that are several generations newer.

 

[Olle P]

... Dell system I listed above is $689 pre-tax currently. ... What is the cheapest equivalent AMD system you can find?

Dell is essentially Intel's storefront. Dell computers are designed in close cooperation with Intel's engineers. Dell get priority from Intel and can pick an choose what products they want to use while other OEMs get the leftovers. Dell gets an 85% discount off Intel's list prices.
Very few other OEMs can match that.
Try to get those hundreds or thousands of Intel computers from a smaller manufacturer, in time and at the same price. You'll fail!

AMD doesn't have a comparable organisation and they don't have one vendor that have exclusive rights to all of their products in the same way.
That said, HP does have a couple of comparable computer models with Ryzen 5 2400G at about that price point.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Only, it isn't always true. You don't seem to be following what everyone else is saying. OEM's generate the majority of their revenue from businesses. If I need 100 desktops next week, Dell will sell me an i5 9500, 256GB NVME SSD, 8GB RAM, with a Windows 10 Pro license for under $700 each and have them shipped to my office for free in 2 or 3 business days. Can you build that many systems of equivalent performance and have them delivered to me in 2 or 3 days for less?
...

If you have done such poor planning that you require 100 PCs in 2-3 days, then the extra markup might be worth it to you ... it doesn't mean I can't build one for less (which was verbatim what I said), or have them built for less by my Intel systems builder and delivered in 2 weeks. This is what I said ... it is you who are refusing to listen to what I write, make other assumptions from them, and are choosing to argue something that is not what I am claiming or is my point.

I am not saying OEM doesn't have a place -- where the FK is this argument coming from? Seriously? Try responding to what I am actually saying if all you want to do is argue.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Dell is essentially Intel's storefront. Dell computers are designed in close cooperation with Intel's engineers. Dell get priority from Intel and can pick an choose what products they want to use while other OEMs get the leftovers. Dell gets an 85% discount off Intel's list prices.
Very few other OEMs can match that.
Try to get those hundreds or thousands of Intel computers from a smaller manufacturer, in time and at the same price. You'll fail!

AMD doesn't have a comparable organisation and they don't have one vendor that have exclusive rights to all of their products in the same way.
That said, HP does have a couple of comparable computer models with Ryzen 5 2400G at about that price point.

Wasn't it a Dell CEO that was given a billion dollars from Intel to not use a certain other brand? Oh wait, sorry, my mistake ... it was one billion dollars per year ... So there's obviously a tight relationship there. Thanks for pointing that out. 😉

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Its just the Intel literally makes LCC parts for under 40$ each then, rips off the OEMs and consumers(but Dell the least), who in turn, peddle Intel since once you're locked into Intel, you can never change and the OEMs/ODMs gotta move that merchandise somehow. At least its improved in the server space where there at least exist Epyc alternatives (and where tech literacy actually matters/exists) to Intel racks.

 

[Olle P]

... Dell will sell me an i5 9500, 256GB NVME SSD, 8GB RAM, with a Windows 10 Pro license for under $700 each and have them shipped to my office for free in 2 or 3 business days. ...

And if you demand to have 16GB dual channel RAM instead of the 8GB single channel provided, what would that cost you? Should be about $50 extra each, but I bet it's much more and/or possibly with a significant delay.

My personal experience is that OEM computers usually fail to just meet my demands. Either they fail to meet one or more factors or they're overkill in some other. Often both. And they do charge you for that extra capacity.
Price comparison shouldn't be the parts provided by OEM vs same parts purchased separately, but price of a build with parts that just meet my requirements vs the cheapest OEM computer that doesn't fail to meet any parameter.

 

[spongiemaster]

If you have done such poor planning that you require 100 PCs in 2-3 days, then the extra markup might be worth it to you ...

You're missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter how much time I give you, you're not competing with Dell. Calken bought 50,000 systems last year. How long would it take you to order the individual parts and build those yourself?

it doesn't mean I can't build one for less (which was verbatim what I said), or have them built for less by my Intel systems builder and delivered in 2 weeks. This is what I said ... it is you who are refusing to listen to what I write, make other assumptions from them, and are choosing to argue something that is not what I am claiming or is my point.

I don't know whether you said anything about building one for less, I don't feel like going back through all your posts. What I do know is that I did not quote anything from you saying that, so I never attempted to argue that point. Heed your own advice and stop moving the goal posts futilely defending your blanket statements that are easily debunked as false by trying to add conditions that didn't exist in your initial statements.

I am not saying OEM doesn't have a place -- where the FK is this argument coming from? Seriously? Try responding to what I am actually saying if all you want to do is argue.

Not sure you're aware of this, but anybody can go back and read everything you've posted on these boards.

I hate OEM machines - they're all garbage as far as I am concerned.

Not sure where the room for a "but" or "however" is after that gem from you.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...
I don't know whether you said anything about building one for less, I don't feel like going back through all your posts. What I do know is that I did not quote anything from you saying that, so I never attempted to argue that point ...

Pretty sure you did ...

Not sure you're aware of this, but anybody can go back and read everything you've posted on these boards.

How about just within the thread which contains the context? Well then, thanks for responding to all the things not said, and not implied. That's a head scratcher ...

 

[febisfebi]

Another European retailer (Central Point from Netherlands) was also listing all Intel desktop Comet lake CPUs and said that they will be in stock on March 30th. Below are the prices:
https://www.centralpoint.nl/process...00k-3-70ghz-art-cm8070104282844-num-12135319/

1. The 10900K (without VAT) was listed for €457 which converts to 517USD. The 10900KF was listed (without VAT) for €433 which converts to $490.
2. The 10700K and 10700KF respectively were showing for €354 and €329 (without VAT) which translate to $400 and $372.
3. The 10600K and 10600KF were listed (without VAT) for €240 and €215 respectively. This converts to $272 and $243.

(EDIT: Pricing on Central Point changed slightly - it moved to €463 for the 10900K from €457 and it appears to be in stock on March 31st instead of March 30th).

By the way I don’t know why people are comparing AMD CPUs with Intel’s unlocked versions or versions with integrated graphics? As far as I am concerned AMD CPUs should really only be compared to Intel’s F versions when it comes to pricing. Personally, I would be comparing the 3700X with the 10700F. The 10700F is listed for 281EUR (pre-VAT) translating to 318USD which is lower than the 3700X's MSRP 329USD. It is also its closest competitor performance-wise since the 10700F scores about the same as the 3700X in Geekbench (in fact the 10700F scores 2% higher in the single-threaded test and they are equal in the multithreaded test) and that with pre-release BIOS and an engineering sample of 10700F). They are also both rated at 65W TDP.

Now I am sure some ...people... will object about the vanilla F version comparison. But think about it. AMD CPUs don’t have integrated graphics and although they are “oveclockable” they still clock lower than the locked versions of Intel CPUs even when you overclock them. It is also unwise to overclock AMD cpus in the first place as they offer no tangible performance uplift over stock settings plus you actually lose single-threaded performance when you do so. Most people just run their 2000 and 3000 series AMD cpus at stock settings and just turn on XMP. And speaking of XMP, unlike AMD cpus, Intel cpus are perfectly fine with 2666MHz RAM. And now stock RAM frequency for the 10th gen Comet lake is raised to 2933MHz. Also, even if you have a locked Intel CPU you can still buy a high-end kit and use tight timings, like 2933CL13. That will give you pretty much the same performance uplift as enabling XMP of a 3600CL16 kit– and that uplift is not significant (<3% in the vast majority of cases) to begin with. Intel CPUs, unlike AMD’s, don’t benefit as much from high frequency RAM. They instead offer nearly maximum performance at stock RAM settings, especially now that stock has become 2933MHz.

It appears your link is broken. Have you any further information on this retailer and the march 31st date? I have tried searching the site, I cannot find any even just cpus. Only OEM full built systems, and they are not 10th gen CML
Thanks

 

[PCWarrior]

It appears your link is broken. Have you any further information on this retailer and the march 31st date? I have tried searching the site, I cannot find any even just cpus. Only OEM full built systems, and they are not 10th gen CML
Thanks

They have now removed the pages related to the Comet Lake S skus. Anyway, I monitored those pages and prices fluctuated according to the EUR-USD exchange rate. For the 10900K I recorded €457, €463 and €465 as the EUR to USD rate went from around 1.13 to around 1.11. So, the pre-VAT price of the 10900K when converted to USD was constantly around $516-$517. Similarly the prices I gave in USD for the other skus remained the same. Apparently Intel will be slotting the 10900K in the same price tier as the 9900KS and make the KF skus the same price as the previous-gen K skus. So the 10900KF is placed in the same price tier as the 9900K (around $490) and the 10700KF in the same tier as the 9700K (around $372). And the 10600KF is $243 which is the same price that traditionally the i5 K-skus had (the 7600K, 6600K, 4690K, 4670K all had an MSRP of either $242 or $243). Then the full K skus will be $25-$30 higher than the KF skus.

As for availability, the first time the page said it will be in stock on March 30th, the second time on March 31st and the last time it was said April 1st. Bear in mind here that there may be some delays in shipping arrangements etc due to the current coronavirus pandemic. We will see but the launch is definitely around the end of March/start of April with an announcement likely earlier than that.

 

[PCWarrior]

Intel will always win OEM, because of their reliability. We tried buying a bulk of AMD OEM pc, 2 or 3 were defective (cpu causing issue with MB, DOA etc, driver issues) which caused more pain and cost than buying higher end (AKA Intel). Plus, the better cores of intel makes a better productivity than the more core of AMD, for the business. Not a single businessman cares about having 32 cores and 64 threads. They want 4-6 cores that performs well, and reliable.

It should also be mentioned that when you buy an OEM PC you are buying a complete system. For a complete system the price of the cpu itself is only a fraction of the total cost. The cost of the other components (including motherboards with equivalent features) is the same. So even if the Intel cpu costs 500 dollars and the AMD cpu costs 300 dollars, the complete system isn't 60% more expensive neither does it need to be 60% faster to justify the 200-dollar difference. If for example the rest of your components (plus assembly labour/profit if you are buying from a system integrator or OEM) cost 1700 dollars, then you are really comparing an AMD-based system that costs 2000 dollars versus an Intel-based system that costs 2200 dollars. So, the Intel system only needs to be 10% better to justify its price tag.

That’s why people buy Intel when they buy complete systems. Not because they are ignorant. Sure, many don't know how to assemble a PC but that doesn’t make them unable to compare performance and prices. After all, this is the same logic that we, the people who do know how to a build a PC, use when we buy laptops. And besides performance there are others factors too. There is reliability, support, features, form factor, availability, etc. Even if the computers have equal performance what’s paying 10% premium for a computer that you will be using every day for likely the next 4-5 years?