News Intel Core i9-10850K Hits Newegg for $500

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
logainofhades said:
Hard pass. If I really needed that many cores, I would just go with a 3900x, for less.
Click to expand...
3900X is better value, but these Intel cpus provide the best of both worlds - fastest single thread performance by a decent margin, plus lots of cores if needed. Lots of power draw and heat too, but can't win them all.
 
Anyone needing that many cores/threads, is going to be doing tasks that aren't exactly single performance dependent, so the 3900x would still be the superior option. Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.
 
logainofhades said:
Anyone needing that many cores/threads, is going to be doing tasks that aren't exactly single performance dependent, so the 3900x would still be the superior option. Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.
Click to expand...
No doubt anyone regularly using 10+ cores would benefit the more from a 3900X. But anyone more regularly using a single threaded application (which is typical) and occasionally multi-threaded would benefit more from a 10850 (real life use cases aren't multi-threaded benchmarks). Sure, it's not great value, but an extra few hundred bucks isn't really a big deal - easy to spend that on a night out, with nothing to show for it the next day.

If Intel can get their 10nm to work at 5 GHz it could blow AMD out of the water. But seems that's in the distant future...
 
deesider said:
3900X is better value, but these Intel cpus provide the best of both worlds - fastest single thread performance by a decent margin, plus lots of cores if needed. Lots of power draw and heat too, but can't win them all.
Click to expand...
I agree that Intel is still hanging on to single core advantage, however when it comes to multicore performance, there are a lot of reviews out there that shows that the 12 cores 3900X being the better performer in most cases. And as you rightfully mentioned, Intel needed to blow the power requirement just to maintain their lead on single core performance by means of pushing for extremely high clockspeed.

In addition if you look beyond the cost of processor itself, you need to also have a good motherboard to keep up with the power requirement of the i9 processors and that supports faster ram. A good Z490 board is not cheap, while you can get a B550 or older X470 board at a lower price that works with the Ryzen 3900X.
 
deesider said:
If Intel can get their 10nm to work at 5 GHz it could blow AMD out of the water. But seems that's in the distant future...
Click to expand...

if amd could get zen 3 up to 5ghz, that could really blow intel out of the water 🙂 intel NEEDS its clock speeds to keep any performance advantage it has. but for that performance, who wants a space heater sitting beside them?
 
clockspeed isnt everything ? then why do people keep praising intel reaching higher clock speeds then amd does ? clock intel and amd at the same speeds with the same number of cores, and there is a good chance, intel wouldnt look so good on the performance department.
 
logainofhades said:
Anyone needing that many cores/threads, is going to be doing tasks that aren't exactly single performance dependent, so the 3900x would still be the superior option. Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.
Click to expand...
Even when comparing only multithreaded apps the 3900x wins by 10% but by having 20% more cores.
You can choose between 10% better multi when getting the 3900x ...big deal /s
or 10% better single core performance per every available core when getting intel, also ...big deal /s
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05...performancerating-fuer-anwendungen-multi-core
logainofhades said:
Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.
Click to expand...
Getting off 14nm would mean that 14nm sales would drop to zero immediately,intel is making crazy money from 14nm right now so no,what intel needs to do is to stay right where they are.
Intel keeps doing what they have been doing since forever, the bare minimum to still sell anything they make.
 
The 3900x is also a good $70-$100 cheaper. Prices, for Intel chips, have struggled to meet MSRP, for quite some time now, due to the 14nm shortages. Intel is losing market share, in the retail space, just as an FYI. People have been fired, over them still not getting off of 14nm++++. They are trying to push 10nm, which is super late, on the desktop side, and 7nm has been delayed, again. Sales wouldn't drop to 0, if they got off of 14nm. New products would emerge, on the newer process, and there would still be 14nm, in the marketplace. You are basically saying Intel should simply never change. If they don't change, they are going to end up with a lot less market share. Also smaller node = more dies per wafer, as long as yields are sufficiently good. That in turn, saves money, on resources.
 
Last edited:
Bout 8 or 9 months ago I looked at all of the 9th gen CPUs and found that the vast majority of them were not in stock or were on sale for much above MSRP.

10th gen only worsens this 🙁

You would think after using the same basic architecture and 14nm node for half a decade Intel would be able to produce it in large enough quantities to meet demand. Apparently not.

Here are some of the prices on PCPP USA.

i3:
i3 10100: Available at MSRP.
i3 10300: Available for double MSRP
i3 10320: Not available

i5:
i5 10400: Available at MSRP
i5 10400f: Not available
i5 10500: Available for $40 over MSRP
i5 10600: Available for $40 over MSRP
i5 10600k: Available for $30 over MSRP
i5 10600kf: Available for $30 over MSRP

i7:
i7 10700: $40 over MSRP
i7 10700f: Not available
i7 10700k: Available for $30 over MSRP
i710700kf: Not available

i9:
i9 10900: $30 above MSRP
i9 10900f: Available for $55 over MSRP
i9 10850k: Available for $50 over MSRP
i9 10900k: Available at MSRP (been awhile)
i9 10900kf: Not available
The good value Intel CPUs like a 10400f are not available at all.

AMD, despite being on a newer architecture and smaller node, is having far less stock issues.
R3:
r3 3100: Available at $20 over MSRP
r3 3300x: Not available

R5:
R5 3600: Available $25 below MSRP
R5 3600x: Available $45 below MSRP
R5 3600xt Available $10 below MSRP

r7:
R7 3700x: Available $50 below MSRP
r7 3800x: Available $70 below MSRP
r7 3800xt: Available $10 below MSRP

r9:
R9 3900x: Available $60 below MSRP
r9 3900xt: Available $20 below MSRP
R9 3950x: Available $40 below MSRP
To be fair, the 3300x has been a paper launch for the most part. The 3900x and 3950x had very high demand at launch and sold out fast, but now are available below MSRP.

The story is ONLY WORSE for Intel when looking at HEDT parts.

Intel Core i9 X series:
i9 10900x: Available $30 over MSRP
i9 10920x: Available $10 over MSRP
i9 10940x: Available $60 over MSRP
i9 10980x: Not available

Threadripper 3960x: Available $50 below MSRP
Threadripper 3970x: Available $150 below MSRP
Threadripper 3990x: Available $400 below MSRP
AMD is giving $400 mark offs on their flagship meanwhile you can't even buy Intel's flagship.
AMD doesn't even have any competition from Intel in this segment but AMD is still dropping prices.
 
Last edited:
Look up intel's finances,how do they lose market share,they are making twice the money than before,their CPUs are in high demand which is why you can't find them which is why they are sold for more than they should be,google for supply and demand...
Nobody wants the AMD chips which is why they are cheap and always in stock even though they (tsmc) are not even making that many of them.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263565/intels-net-income-since-2004/
vb0yhR9.jpg
 
logainofhades said:
Nobody wants AMD, seriously? Actual proof of them losing market share.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/735904/worldwide-x86-intel-amd-market-share/#:~:text=In the second quarter of,percent were from AMD processors.



https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7222...-50-of-premium-cpu-sales-worldwide/index.html

https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-dominates-intel-in-cpu-sales-at-least-according-to-one-retailer#:~:text=New sales data released by,to just 770 Intel CPUs.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...gns-of-life-as-amd-dominates-retail-cpu-sales

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1593...ebook-and-server-sales-drive-a-record-quarter
Click to expand...
Intel is selling everything they can produce. The overall market share they are losing isn't purely from people choosing AMD over Intel, a non-zero portion of it is from customers having to go with AMD because they don't have another option. Sure, Intel is getting their butt kicked the enthusiast retail market, but that's a niche of a niche as far as overall market share is concerned.
 
I said market share, in the retail market. OEM and enterprise isn't the retail market. Us DIY builders, and the Cyberpower like companies, of the world, would be considered retail. AMD though, has been making gains, in mobile, and enterprise. The new 4000 series mobile chips are quite good. While my current laptop is an intel 9750h, if I were buying today, it would be a 6 or 8 core Ryzen 4000 series equipped one. Intel has not been innovating, as they once were, and it is starting to bite them. I don't know if it is poor leadership, or complacency, from the FX days, or what it is, but I hope they get out of their slump, and bring some exciting competition to the table, and soon.
 
Try finding a cheap Intel laptop right now. Dell is backordered on everything but the lowest end until October. I resorted to going to Best Buy to try and find a few laptops locally to pick up. When I asked the sales guy if he had a certain model in stock, without even looking it up he said, if it's Intel under $600, we don't have it. Intel is having real problems trying to keep up with demand. If they could keep up with demand, AMD's market gains in mobile would be pretty much nil. The company I work for has quite a few Ice Lake 10nm laptops going back to their release last year, and there is nothing AMD offers that we would pick over Intel's options for office work.
 
There are not exactly that many AMD Ryzen 4000 laptops even available just yet. Budget friendly laptops, in general, are hard to come by, due to people grabbing them, for remote learning, due to Covid. That goes for AMD and Intel based laptops. It has nothing to do with Intel's process issues.
 
logainofhades said:
There are not exactly that many AMD Ryzen 4000 laptops even available just yet. Budget friendly laptops, in general, are hard to come by, due to people grabbing them, for remote learning, due to Covid. That goes for AMD and Intel based laptops.
Click to expand...
Correct, most people buying for home use will likely buy an AMD laptop if they can't buy an Intel, because they have to have something, and don't know the difference. That's where most of the mobile market share gain for AMD is coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom