News Intel CPU deals: 10th Gen Core Processors see Huge Price cuts

thGe17

Prominent
Sep 2, 2019
68
23
535
0
Not really. This simply results from the fact that there exists a competitor in the market. If history would have been different, this could also be VIA or even maybe Cyrix? :-D
AMD is as selfish and profit-oriented as Intel is. Their strategy is to gain a bigger market share and make more money, not to make some consumers happy. You, as a consumer, can currently benefit from the current market composition, and it would be even more beneficial if there would be a third competitor in the market. (Simple market mechanics.)
 
Reactions: CorpRebel
As Intel begins to take pre-orders on its 11th gen Rocket Lake CPUs
What pre-orders...begins? Some retailers in Europe sold them a month ago which means that intel has been shipping them out since at least back then so "pre"-orders if you can call them that have been going on for a while now.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Intel had recent efforts to cut prices?
Why would they cut prices during a shortage?
If AMD can't sell any more CPUs anyway because of the shortages then how is intel targeting them?
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
Not really. This simply results from the fact that there exists a competitor in the market. If history would have been different, this could also be VIA or even maybe Cyrix? :-D
AMD is as selfish and profit-oriented as Intel is. Their strategy is to gain a bigger market share and make more money, not to make some consumers happy. You, as a consumer, can currently benefit from the current market composition, and it would be even more beneficial if there would be a third competitor in the market. (Simple market mechanics.)
Before Ryzen, Intel had no competition from AMD for years, and they purposefully stagnated the market as a result of that.
Those Piledriver/Bulldozer cpus were not a worthwhile competitor for Intel.

Though it's not like AMD or any other company wouldn't do the same given the chance.
 

keith12

Illustrious
Before Ryzen, Intel had no competition from AMD for years, and they purposefully stagnated the market as a result of that.
Those Piledriver/Bulldozer cpus were not a worthwhile competitor for Intel.

Though it's not like AMD or any other company wouldn't do the same given the chance.
Bang on @Phaaze88

Although AMD 'existed as a competitor', they had nothing to bring to the table back then. Tables have turned dramatically in the last 3 years.

For those who don't remember the Intel 5% increase in IPC per new Gen for maybe 4 generations, the harsh facts are that AMD, whilst beholden to shareholders, like Intel are, they offer so much more as evident by their current Ryzen lineup, and the generally massive IPC gains from gen to gen. Not to mention still offering amazing value, with more cores/threads at similar price points. Oh, of course, they did also take the performance lead from Intel at the same time. There's no doubting these price reductions are the result of AMD's Ryzen rollout.
 

thGe17

Prominent
Sep 2, 2019
68
23
535
0
Before Ryzen, Intel had no competition from AMD for years, and they purposefully stagnated the market as a result of that.
Those Piledriver/Bulldozer cpus were not a worthwhile competitor for Intel.

Though it's not like AMD or any other company wouldn't do the same given the chance.
So whats your point? Because the most likely one has already been noted by myself: A market needs competition ... ;-)

Additionally the "purposefully stagnated" is nothing more than a speculation. Maybe the consumer market needed not much more CPU power at that time and the console generation already limited CPU performace to 3, up to 4 high speed PC-CPU-cores at best.
For example Intel sold Core X 6-core CPUs already in 2011 and the first real, full-blown 8-core CPU in 2014 (long before Zen/Ryzen), but obvioulsy the market interest in these products was very small.
And then in 2017 Zen appeared, with 8 cores and a relatively low price, but not because AMD wanted to be nice to poor gamers. The market simply forced them to follow this strategy, because, Zen (at that time) could not fully compete against Intels Sky/Kaby Lake and they needed a lower price to generate certain amount of sales. Again, simple market mechanics, often misinterpreted, particulary by fans, but that's another story.

And additionally it was no accident, that AMD had chosen the consumer market *) to be the initial driver for their growth. It was a simple business calculation, because with regards to OEMs or the datacenter AMD wouldn't have had a chance to get back on its feet again.

*) And therefore gamers, because simple office users had (in most cases) no real need for a high core count at this time.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: CorpRebel

Co BIY

Honorable
Jun 18, 2015
716
151
11,190
9
I think much of the credit needs to go to TSMC who drove the production process past what Intel was able to maintain. All their customers benefited from that but they are also going to be able to take a large share of the profits.

I'm not sure the long term outlook for the consumer market is great though because of the concentration of production in only a few companies , the struggles of even these to progress at the high end, and the competition with corporate customers .
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
During this time of global pandemic one cpu manufacture has been lowering their prices for months now while the other manufacture has been raising their prices.
It's their 'privilege' for becoming top dawg.
Intel did it for so long with their Core i cpus... AMD does it for a few months, and people got upset... really?

Why Intel is doing so many price drops when they were so reluctant to do them before, tells me something is up.
Do they have inventory that's not really moving as fast as they'd like? Meanwhile, AMD+TSMC is struggling to do the same. I'd bet Intel wished they could also be struggling to keep their chips in stock.

I'm looking forward to see what Alder Lake can do, but right now:
Ryzen 5000 V Comet/Rocket Lake: You want the best, you pay a premium for it. Hasn't it always been this way? Can't acquire the best, due to supply constraints? The runner up isn't bad product at all - if you can get that, get it.
HEDT: It looks like Intel gave up here. Threadripper/Epyc beat the pants off X-series and Xeon, but it's been slow going for AMD here, as some of the intended targets for these chips are reluctant to adopt to a completely different platform.
Underdog. The roles have reversed - at least for now.

Nvidia chose their price when they were uncontested at the high end, and few seemed to have bat an eye at that.
1500USD 3090s - Nvidia can spin it however they want, but those are Titans - hardly anyone complained, and bought the cards.
The 2080Ti that had an MSRP of 999USD, but almost no one started selling at that price, except for EVGA, who lagged behind, but would then follow suit like everyone else and sell for 1199+. No backlash at the 200$ price jump...


Am I actually missing something?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: keith12 and Conahl

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,794
905
3,560
0
Before Ryzen, Intel had no competition from AMD for years, and they purposefully stagnated the market as a result of that.
Those Piledriver/Bulldozer cpus were not a worthwhile competitor for Intel.
Intel didn't purposely stagnate. They got over confident/ambitious with 10nm and ended up screwing themselves over. We should see three consecutive desktop generations with 3 distinctly different architectures from Intel released in under 2 years. That's not because Intel's architecture team suddenly decided to start trying again after AMD released Ryzen. They've been chugging along the whole time. The problem has been the process engineering side which couldn't get 10nm right so the new architectures have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Intel most certainly didn't purposefully delay desktop 10nm by 4+ years and counting because AMD wasn't competing well enough.
 

Conahl

Prominent
Apr 24, 2020
243
82
660
0
Phaaze88, exactly, and well put. intel kept raising their prices while only increasing performance 10% or less GEN ON GEN. amd does what was it, 19% ?? from zen 2 to zen 3, and people whine and cry that they raised their MSRP by $50?? come on !!!
HEDT: It looks like Intel gave up here. Threadripper/Epyc beat the pants off X-series and Xeon but it's been slow going for AMD here, as some of the intended targets for these chips are reluctant to adopt to a completely different platform.
that or they are locked into contracts and cant switch yet.
Before Ryzen, Intel had no competition from AMD for years, and they purposefully stagnated the market as a result of that.
not according to the intel fans. according to them if intel didnt anything other then what they did, then it would of put amd out of business, which is PURE 100% speculation and PERSONAL opinion, and they can only say that now, cause they is NO way to know for sure what would of happened.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,794
905
3,560
0
not according to the intel fans. according to them if intel didnt anything other then what they did, then it would of put amd out of business, which is PURE 100% speculation and PERSONAL opinion, and they can only say that now, cause they is NO way to know for sure what would of happened.
You'd have to be a total tool to believe that. I've only seen one poster here say that, so not sure why you have fans pluralized. Seeing as you're basically the AMD version of that particular poster, you calling that poster out is basically you calling the kettle black.
 

Conahl

Prominent
Apr 24, 2020
243
82
660
0
and YOU have to be a total fool to believe otherwise, whats your point ? and you are the intel version, again, what is your point ?
you DO know there are other sites other then toms, and i HAVE seen others post similar things on other sites i read.
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
We should see three consecutive desktop generations with 3 distinctly different architectures from Intel released in under 2 years.
I hope you're right. More options is always good.

Intel didn't purposely stagnate. They got over confident/ambitious with 10nm and ended up screwing themselves over.
That's not because Intel's architecture team suddenly decided to start trying again after AMD released Ryzen. They've been chugging along the whole time. The problem has been the process engineering side which couldn't get 10nm right so the new architectures have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Intel most certainly didn't purposefully delay desktop 10nm by 4+ years and counting because AMD wasn't competing well enough.
So Intel was stuck on Skylake for the foreseeable future... AMD being out of the picture for another ~2 years(from Skylake's launch) didn't play a part into Intel's overconfidence/ambition?
After Kabylake, they couldn't just NOT release anything, so in come the Skylake clones...
I'll take back 'purposefully', but the unintended stagnation still worked well for business:
They were top dog(price control) at the time, and released multiple cpu gens that were no more than 'ticks'(lil' bumps). Some people had little choice but to keep going to them.
AMD didn't really strike back until Zen 2 - sort of.


not according to the intel fans. according to them if intel didnt anything other then what they did, then it would of put amd out of business, which is PURE 100% speculation and PERSONAL opinion, and they can only say that now, cause they is NO way to know for sure what would of happened.
Ok, that must be Bad Future they're talking about. Fortunately, we're in Good Future.
[Kudos if you get the reference!]
 
Reactions: keith12
Why Intel is doing so many price drops when they were so reluctant to do them before, tells me something is up.
Do they have inventory that's not really moving as fast as they'd like? Meanwhile, AMD+TSMC is struggling to do the same. I'd bet Intel wished they could also be struggling to keep their chips in stock.
All the mayor resellers are making space because they are getting the 11th gen delivered in literal boat/truck/train loads to have enough of them around at the release date.
Yes nobody is buying 10th gen a week before 11th gen launches...what a shock.
AMD+TSMC are struggling to even put anything on the store shelves in the first place and that is very different.

It's their 'privilege' for becoming top dawg.
Intel did it for so long with their Core i cpus... AMD does it for a few months, and people got upset... really?
intel kept releasing the same thing over and over but they also kept the same prices over and over, more or less.
AMD in a single gen
raised prices for anything by $50
reduced value even more by removing the fan
didn't release any low/medium CPU at all to only scalp the big CPUs.
Intel never did that many things at once, even when they removed the fans from the K versions that was the only bad thing they did that gen. Often for a gen they also released a very cheap CPU with a high added value like the overclockable pentium and then the i3, it's not much but it shows goodwill.
 
For those who don't remember the Intel 5% increase in IPC per new Gen for maybe 4 generations, the harsh facts are that AMD, whilst beholden to shareholders, like Intel are, they offer so much more as evident by their current Ryzen lineup, and the generally massive IPC gains from gen to gen. Not to mention still offering amazing value, with more cores/threads at similar price points. Oh, of course, they did also take the performance lead from Intel at the same time. There's no doubting these price reductions are the result of AMD's Ryzen rollout.
I wouldn't say AMD's current lineup is really offering "so much more". They do offer some additional performance compared to Intel's processors with similar core counts, along with better efficiency, but in terms of performance per dollar, Intel is arguably offering similar or better value right now. Unlike AMD's prior Ryzen generations, they only launched "premium" models this time around, and even hiked prices on those by a substantial amount. Last generation, the 3600 performed nearly on par with the 3600X, and was just $200 at launch. This generation, there has still not been a 5600 released nearly 5 months after launch, and the 5600X was priced at $300, a 50% price hike for the same core count, despite the processor itself not costing any more to manufacture. The 5800X similarly carries a $120 (36%) price hike over the 3700X, while also dropping the previously included Wraith Prism cooler.

Granted, I'm sure they knew the processors would be selling out anyway due to their leading performance, combined with their limited supply that is probably at least in part due to their contracts to supply Microsoft and Sony with millions of relatively large console APUs. So, they priced their limited supply of processors to target the enthusiast market. I would suspect they might not be able to maintain their current pricing for long once Rocket Lake is on the market though, so they will probably fill those gaps with more value-oriented models before too long.

Intel didn't purposely stagnate. They got over confident/ambitious with 10nm and ended up screwing themselves over. We should see three consecutive desktop generations with 3 distinctly different architectures from Intel released in under 2 years. That's not because Intel's architecture team suddenly decided to start trying again after AMD released Ryzen. They've been chugging along the whole time. The problem has been the process engineering side which couldn't get 10nm right so the new architectures have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Intel most certainly didn't purposefully delay desktop 10nm by 4+ years and counting because AMD wasn't competing well enough.
Honestly, I think Intel was purposely stagnating for a number of years there, at least in terms of improvements to things like core counts and integrated graphics. Without much competition from AMD since the Core series launched, they didn't really feel the need to provide major generational improvements to their processors beyond the minor gains resulting from process node shrinks. They undoubtedly figured that they might as well not dedicate any more silicon to the chips than was necessary, up until they saw AMD readying more competitive products. Between Coffee Lake and Comet Lake, the core counts of Kaby Lake were doubled within a few years of its release. While they have been stuck on the same process node and architecture since 2015, at least these recent generations provided an increase to core counts. That might not be great for thermals or power draw under load, but does provide some decent generation improvements.
 

keith12

Illustrious
I wouldn't say AMD's current lineup is really offering "so much more".
You mean apart from higher IPC, better efficiency, best gaming performance, mature PCIe 4 support, unlocked CPU's at every price point, a better/longer upgrade path from gen to gen and higher core/thread counts in the mainstream segment? Maybe you're right then, not really 'that' much more.
 
Last edited:

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,794
905
3,560
0
Honestly, I think Intel was purposely stagnating for a number of years there, at least in terms of improvements to things like core counts and integrated graphics. Without much competition from AMD since the Core series launched, they didn't really feel the need to provide major generational improvements to their processors beyond the minor gains resulting from process node shrinks. They undoubtedly figured that they might as well not dedicate any more silicon to the chips than was necessary, up until they saw AMD readying more competitive products. Between Coffee Lake and Comet Lake, the core counts of Kaby Lake were doubled within a few years of its release. While they have been stuck on the same process node and architecture since 2015, at least these recent generations provided an increase to core counts. That might not be great for thermals or power draw under load, but does provide some decent generation improvements.
Most of what you are saying is true. But again that all circles back to Intel being unable to get 10nm right on their original schedule. There have been plenty of leaks over the last few years that give us an idea of what Intel was trying to do, and never did.

Intel’s Unreleased 10nm Cannonlake 8 Core And 6 Core Laptop CPUs Spotted

Intel was planning to release 8 core mobile CPU's in 2018 with Cannon Lake. As we all know, what we actually got was a dual core with disabled igpu Cannon Lake CPU just so Intel could announce they had shipped a 10nm CPU. We also know that Intel had 8 core 10nm Cannon Lake-S CPU's for the desktop planned. Once Intel realized 10nm was FUBAR'd and they were going to be stuck with 14nm for the forseeable future, everything you say is true. Intel at that point started intentionally stalling for the reasons you mention which do not include AMD wasn't competing so Intel decided to not try.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,794
905
3,560
0
You mean apart from higher IPC, better efficiency, best gaming performance, mature PCIe 4 support, unlocked CPU's at every price point, a better/longer upgrade path from gen to gen and higher core/thread counts in the mainstream segment? Maybe you're right then, not really 'that' much more.
You're combining the features of different Ryzen generations as if it is one generation which is a false argument. No single generation of Ryzen has all of the features you list. As cryoburner said, in the end it comes down to price performance. And for the first time in ages, that title actually goes to Intel through basically the whole mainstream product stack. A 10700k isn't faster than a 5800X, but at $320 (and in stock) it is a much better deal than a 5800X at $450 (and not in stock). A 10900k is only $5 more than 5800x right now. A 5600X is $350, while a 10600K is $215. Technically AMD leads at 12 and 16 cores, but good luck finding them, and those aren't really mainstream CPU's despite dropping into a mainstream platform.
 

BogdanH

Respectable
Honestly, I think Intel was purposely stagnating for a number of years there, at least in terms of improvements...
purposely stagnating?.. staying behind on purpose.. Who in the world would do that?

If reading latest Intel's strategy plans (presented by Intel CEO), one doesn't even need to read between the lines, to realize Intel has serious troubles -which they plan (start) to solve in 2023.

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither happy or sad because of current Intel situation -as I'm also not happy AMD CPU's are kinda pricey right now. But Intel would do the same if it would have competitive product (actually it did that for many years).
 

keith12

Illustrious
You're combining the features of different Ryzen generations as if it is one generation which is a false argument. No single generation of Ryzen has all of the features you list. As cryoburner said, in the end it comes down to price performance. And for the first time in ages, that title actually goes to Intel through basically the whole mainstream product stack. A 10700k isn't faster than a 5800X, but at $320 (and in stock) it is a much better deal than a 5800X at $450 (and not in stock). A 10900k is only $5 more than 5800x right now. A 5600X is $350, while a 10600K is $215. Technically AMD leads at 12 and 16 cores, but good luck finding them, and those aren't really mainstream CPU's despite dropping into a mainstream platform.
Apologies, taking out "a better/longer upgrade path from gen to gen " everything else applies to the current 5xxx series.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY