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

[Admin]

More cores come with steeper price tags.

Full 10th-Gen Comet Lake CPU Tray Pricing Listed : Read more

 

[bigdragon]

We need more mainstream products with AMD CPUs installed. There is simply no reason to put up with Intel's high prices anymore. These prices make no sense given the competition.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

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.

 

[cyrusfox]

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.

Price is inherrinetly linked to demand. Brand new expect these prices or higher, post Ryzen Gen 4 release, assuming there is enough supply of both AMD and Intel chips, this may drop. Otherwise, price is what the market will support. Without enough competition and enough supply these prices will hold up and maybe even increase.

Time means little on price, for instance look at old 4th gen Devil Canyon CPU i7-4790k. Still sells brand new for $330 and it is 6 years old. You can find used, but still is north of $200 for a 6 year old quad Core CPU. With price stability like this, it makes little sense to upgrade an older platform (I have a Pentium g3258 on it). Might as well step up to Coffee or Comet lake or the comign rocket lake.

Me personally, I hope there is a healthy stock of the top 10 core part. I have a i9-9900KF. and while i do not need to upgrade, I would love to play with the new part and check out the 5.3GHz boost (I am WC so no concerns on heat dissipation).

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

We need more mainstream products with AMD CPUs installed. There is simply no reason to put up with Intel's high prices anymore. These prices make no sense given the competition.

Business strategy. Gotta keep shareholders ignorantly happy.

The tray pricing is per 1000. These prices are for OEM partners. When a person is choosing to buy a whole pre-built PC, no one asks how much the CPU adds to the cost - they just look at the cost of the unit and the specs, and choose from what is offered.

Intel has lost a lot of the enthusiast market already, so this is how they are choosing retain their margins for their chips that are obviously more expensive to manufacture than AMDs.

Maintaining their margines keeps shareholders happy. Losing happy enthusiasts seems to be a sacrifice they are willing to make to do just that ...

That said, street pricing may end up lower depending on supply.

 

[Deicidium369]

OEMs will build whatever their customers want - and it seems their customers do not want AMD - why buy something "as good as Intel" in a world that has Intel.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

OEMs will build whatever their customers want - and it seems their customers do not want AMD - why buy something "as good as Intel" in a world that has Intel.

You are forgetting the part where most people buying OEMs wouldn't know a stick of ram from an M.2 drive ... That's why they get ripped off. intel is banking on that "ripped off" part to maintain their revenue, I was just too polite to say it candidly, but thanks for helping to add that clarity.

 

[derekullo]

Ryzen 3900X = 24 threads at $440 or $18.33 per thread

Ryzen 3950X = 32 threads at $750 or $23.42 per thread

Core i9-10900FK = 20 threads at $532 or $26.6 per thread (Best case scenario for dollar per thread)
(I accidentally mixed up the F and the K but it just sounds like Intel's literal response to AMD. How did I not see this months ago lol)

Core i9-9900K = 16 threads at $550 or $34.37 per thread

Technically Intel isn't being as greedy as usual.

 

[mdd1963]

More cores come with steeper price tags.

Full 10th-Gen Comet Lake CPU Tray Pricing Listed : Read more

The 10900K had better make proverbial sammiches during a gaming session at that price....; wayyy too much

 

[bigdragon]

OEMs will build whatever their customers want - and it seems their customers do not want AMD - why buy something "as good as Intel" in a world that has Intel.

I think you have this backwards. The customers don't tell Intel what they want -- Intel tells the customers what they want. We've seen this in the past with Intel's requirements for Netbooks, Ultrabooks, tablets, small form factor desktops, and now Project Athena. Products that stick to Intel's requirements get significant price breaks on components.

It's unclear to what extent Intel is putting requirements on OEMs today. There obviously is some sort of advertising agreement going on given that you always see or hear the Intel jingle on computer ads. A wide variety of CPUs are available, but many OEMs choose the exact same CPU...assuming you can get the actual part number out of the specs instead of just the generation number!

AMD needs to crack into Intel's branding firewall. The enthusiast market is not enough. AMD needs a catchy jingle and some ads that are similar to Apple's Mac vs PC campaign (AMD vs Intel here obviously).

 

[spongiemaster]

You are forgetting the part where most people buying OEMs wouldn't know a stick of ram from an M.2 drive ... That's why they get ripped off. intel is banking on that "ripped off" part to maintain their revenue, I was just too polite to say it candidly, but thanks for helping to add that clarity.

That is a REALLY poor take on who is buying OEM. The bulk of Dell's business doesn't come from individuals. It comes from companies buying 100's or 1000's of systems. When you're buying that many, you want something that will just work, while cost is secondary. We have 100's of desktops in my company, and every single one is a Dell. Why? Because they have a track record with us of just working.

With Windows 7 reaching EOL earlier this year, we purged a slew of ancient systems going all the way back to probably a couple dozen Optiplex 360's. Those are Core 2 based systems from 2008. Only work done on them was replacing the HD with an SSD a few years back. Almost all the old systems were replaced with $700 6 core i5 systems. Dell doesn't even sell AMD based Optiplex's, so they were obviously never considered. When we went to the bean counters and told them we need to replace xx systems that are 8-10+ years old, saving a few bucks isn't the primary concern, replacing them with something we are familiar with and expect to be problem free for just as long is. There was no mass purging of corporate AMD desktops last year, because nobody has an 8+ year old AMD system at work. The computing word doesn't revolve around the tinkering enthusiast, it revolves around businesses who are willing to spend more to continue going with what has worked for them. That's why Intel continues to post record quarters despite legitimate competition from AMD.

 

[PCWarrior]

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.

 

[TerryLaze]

You are forgetting the part where most people buying OEMs wouldn't know a stick of ram from an M.2 drive ... That's why they get ripped off. intel is banking on that "ripped off" part to maintain their revenue, I was just too polite to say it candidly, but thanks for helping to add that clarity.

Someone looking only at web pages and office and getting a CPU that is faster in these things even if it is slower in rendering is getting the exact opposite of "ripped off"
Also intel doesn maintain their revenue,they doubled their revenue thanks to ZEN.

 

[Olle P]

So how do the prices compare?
"... Intel's recommended pricing for the Core i9-9900K is $488 to $499. That's a $63 increase for two additional cores ..."
I thought those ~$494 was the recommended retail price, not the tray price. Am I wrong?
What are the tray prices for the current CPUs?

 

[cyrusfox]

So how do the prices compare?
"... Intel's recommended pricing for the Core i9-9900K is $488 to $499. That's a $63 increase for two additional cores ..."
I thought those ~$494 was the recommended retail price, not the tray price. Am I wrong?
What are the tray prices for the current CPUs?

Tray price for launch of i9-9900k was actually $488

But if you remember back then, with shortages and all it was found at retail for around $600-750 or you were waitlisted for months(I know I was). Price is dependent on what the market will bear with supply and demand directly influencing that. The list price for the i9-10900K looks perfect. But will there be enough supply?
I ultimately ended up going from a i3-8350k to an i7-9700f then ultimately to a i9-9900kf. Never got my hands on a i9-9900k. If supply is also tight for Comet lake, not sure I will ever make the jump as I am not going to pay an early adopter tax and with rocket laket and tigert lake on the near horizon, going to be a lot to digest and look at from the Intel side.

 

[calken]

We have 100's of desktops in my company, and every single one is a Dell. Why? Because they have a track record with us of just working.

There was no mass purging of corporate AMD desktops last year, because nobody has an 8+ year old AMD system at work.

We ordered over 50,000 Dell laptops last year, though on our site of around 1000 people, a Dell tech visits about once every two weeks. These outages are insignificant compared to our own internal management of systems and solutions.

Sadly, those on the hardware selection committee know very little about hardware and a finger in the air guestimation suggests 90%+ of users don't stretch their laptop anyway.

Another point is value after the cycle. Every 3-4 years, we refresh every laptop/desktop in the business, which is why we order so many at once. At the end of that cycle, we sell the entire stock to one company who then refurb and resell. I would imagine an Intel powered device will still attract a higher bid.

The hysteresis in choosing Intel may well see them past their current downturn in node performance.

 

[InvalidError]

Intel's pricing is getting ridiculous, especially when contrasted with already falling prices on AMD's Ryzen 3000 series.

 

[pudubat]

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.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Someone looking only at web pages and office and getting a CPU that is faster in these things even if it is slower in rendering is getting the exact opposite of "ripped off"
Also intel doesn maintain their revenue,they doubled their revenue thanks to ZEN.

When me, as a single individual, can build a PC for less than OEM's offer them, even with all their economies of scale, vendor alignment perks, etc. that will generally outperform it by a landslide, then you are paying too much. Paying too much for what you get = "ripped off" -- don't change the definitions of words to try to make a point.

I look at that graph and I see customer gouging ... especially considering their CPU market isn't great right now ... You can secure you profits well as long as you know how to overprice your product and still make people pay. Thanks for sharing that graph, it lends to my point actually.

I also find it funny that whenever an Intel fan feels like they're losing some sort of argument, the quickly whip out financial numbers, as though it has relevance to the point being made. Don't worry your not the only one who does this ... it happens all the time.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

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.

I only buy Intel for the company I work for (I'm IT director), which has 60+ employees with workstations. I have trouble with some of these as well. I recently had to replace a $1500 Intel NUC with a $600 AMD mITX that I hand built myself, and all the issues went away, and it performs way better overall. Sometimes <Mod Edit> just happens.

But then again, I know how to build a rig ... I hate OEM machines - they're all garbage as far as I am concerned. I get my Intel rigs assembled to spec by a qualified systems builder.

If you want to buy OEM machines and feel comfortable paying for what you get, have at it.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

That is a REALLY poor take on who is buying OEM. The bulk of Dell's business doesn't come from individuals. It comes from companies buying 100's or 1000's of systems. When you're buying that many, you want something that will just work, while cost is secondary. We have 100's of desktops in my company, and every single one is a Dell. Why? Because they have a track record with us of just working.

With Windows 7 reaching EOL earlier this year, we purged a slew of ancient systems going all the way back to probably a couple dozen Optiplex 360's. Those are Core 2 based systems from 2008. Only work done on them was replacing the HD with an SSD a few years back. Almost all the old systems were replaced with $700 6 core i5 systems. Dell doesn't even sell AMD based Optiplex's, so they were obviously never considered. When we went to the bean counters and told them we need to replace xx systems that are 8-10+ years old, saving a few bucks isn't the primary concern, replacing them with something we are familiar with and expect to be problem free for just as long is. There was no mass purging of corporate AMD desktops last year, because nobody has an 8+ year old AMD system at work. The computing word doesn't revolve around the tinkering enthusiast, it revolves around businesses who are willing to spend more to continue going with what has worked for them. That's why Intel continues to post record quarters despite legitimate competition from AMD.

In the case you mentioned, the people buying them aren't the ones using them or having the user experience, nor are those people knowledgable enough to give reasonable feedback. Its the same level of disconnect.

Again, if paying more for OEM than what you can get built is your thing, have at it. Intel can have the OEM ... no enthusiast is going to give two <Mod Edit> ... at all. You guys are all slipping from the main points here.

Let's get some more financial graphs going, shall we? lol ...

 

[TerryLaze]

When me, as a single individual, can build a PC for less than OEM's offer them, even with all their economies of scale, vendor alignment perks, etc. that will generally outperform it by a landslide, then you are paying too much. Paying too much for what you get = "ripped off" -- don't change the definitions of words to try to make a point.

How is that intle's fault?OEMs need to pay advertising they need to maintain service and guarantee,if they would sell systems for the cost of putting them together they would be going out of business.
But sure whenever an AMD fan feels like they're losing some sort of argument, the quickly whip out the intel is gouging argument.

I look at that graph and I see customer gouging ... especially considering their CPU market isn't great right now ... You can secure you profits well as long as you know how to overprice your product and still make people pay. Thanks for sharing that graph, it lends to my point actually.

Money talks BS walks.
They doubled their revenue you don't do that with bad product,they did it because people see the third iteration of ZEN still not being able to clearly beat intel's 14nm per core.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

How is that intle's fault?OEMs need to pay advertising they need to maintain service and guarantee,if they would sell systems for the cost of putting them together they would be going out of business.
But sure whenever an AMD fan feels like they're losing some sort of argument, the quickly whip out the intel is gouging argument.

I said OEMs PC are overpriced compared to what you can build. This is true. I said that Intel CPUs are more expensive than AMDs (actually I don't think I said that, but this is also true). Intel prices their CPUs as they see fit, and one can see their CPU revenue is still higher than AMDs despite some recent price adjustments - therefore, Intel making the billions they are on CPUs (the graph you provided to me for reference), are still having massive markups - massive markups and higher prices than thier competitor for often inferior performing product. Who makes these decisions? Me? You? AMD? No none of those ... I'll give you a toonie (Canadian $2 coin) if you can name who is responsible for all that.

Money talks BS walks.
They doubled their revenue you don't do that with bad product,they did it because people see the third iteration of ZEN still not being able to clearly beat intel's 14nm per core.

I never said their products are bad, they're just generally not as good as the competition currently - and not at all in perf/$ and perf/w areas, ... and a lot more expensive; markup and pricing is also a critical input factor in revenue ... none of this untrue. Not sure what your panties are in a knot about. Intel has high prices and high markeup and won't seem to budge even when the competition is outdoing them on several fronts -- you can't blame me for that, it might be irritating, yes, but I'm not the one responsible.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Someone looking only at web pages and office and getting a CPU that is faster in these things even if it is slower in rendering is getting the exact opposite of "ripped off"
Also intel doesn maintain their revenue,they doubled their revenue thanks to ZEN.

A bit nitpicky, but income and revenue are not the same thing. Intel's revenue 'only' increased ~13% ($8 bil) after 2017, rather than doubling. Given that net income increased by $11.5 bil, looks like they are also managing to save some money somewhere. Maybe they're effectively saving money by amortizing there 14nm equipment over a much longer time than usual? Don't know.

 

[spongiemaster]

I said OEMs PC are overpriced compared to what you can build. This is true.

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?

I never said their products are bad, they're just generally not as good as the competition currently - and not at all in perf/$

But, is that really true? Dell system I listed above is $689 pre-tax currently. Again, I need 100 by next week. What is the cheapest equivalent AMD system you can find?