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

[Phaaze88]

Yes nobody is buying 10th gen a week before 11th gen launches...what a shock.

You don't give the discounts enough credit. Those are pretty hard to pass up.
I'm having deja vu here... this popped up during a 9th gen price cut thread - and you had the same POV there too, and yet, some people were buying those instead of going to 10th gen.
PC enthusiasts, who are the minority in these markets, may or may not care about the price difference, but other, more price conscious users would... so no, it's not a shock.

AMD+TSMC are struggling to even put anything on the store shelves in the first place and that is very different.

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.

Despite all that, they're still selling out what little they can bring in; there is a demand for them even though people could easily just get a 10th or 11th gen Intel right now.
It can't be all that bad.

 

[TerryLaze]

You don't give the discounts enough credit. Those are pretty hard to pass up.
I'm having deja vu here... this popped up during a 9th gen price cut thread - and you had the same POV there too, and yet, some people were buying those instead of going to 10th gen.
PC enthusiasts, who are the minority in these markets, may or may not care about the price difference, but other, more price conscious users would... so no, it's not a shock.

That was my point, nobody would buy them at full price so close to a new launch, that's why they reduce the price, that's why they end up being bought.

Despite all that, they're still selling out what little they can bring in; there is a demand for them even though people could easily just get a 10th or 11th gen Intel right now.
It can't be all that bad.

That wasn't the point you made though.

 

[spongiemaster]

Apologies, taking out "a better/longer upgrade path from gen to gen " everything else applies to the current 5xxx series.

Still a no. 10600k is $215. What is the $200 5xxx equivalent? AMD does not have an unlocked 5xxx at every price point. The cheapest they have is $350. 3.5 years ago Intel released their top of the line first mainstream 6 core 8700k at $359. Before that, top of the line Intel was about $330. The overwhelming majority of the market will not spend $300 or more on a CPU. We'll ignore that Ryzen CPU can't overclock at all, so being unlocked doesn't matter in the first place.

Is that the same mature PCIe4 that AMD recommended disabling if your USB devices weren't working properly?

You split IPC and better gaming performance into 2 separate categories when one is dependent on the other.

5xxx have better per core performance and better efficiency than Intel. Both important, but with no availability of the 12 and 16 models, and Intel holding a significant cost advantage, people are continuing to buy Intel.

 

[Phaaze88]

That was my point, nobody would buy them at full price so close to a new launch, that's why they reduce the price, that's why they end up being bought.

No one remembers - or at least seems to remember - discounts with older gen Intel chips though. Selective memory, I guess...
Skylake-X was another matter.

That wasn't the point you made though.

Because you actually missed my point? The part you quoted wasn't about Intel didn't do all this/AMD did all that, or vice versa.
It was a counterargument to a simple business practice.
Why_Me: Intel's slashing prices, so why are AMD now raising theirs?
Me: Were they never supposed to after finally taking the top spot? That wouldn't make much sense from a business standpoint. Intel hadn't budged from that spot for years, so is AMD really bad for finally doing the same?

 

[cryoburner]

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.

Apologies, taking out "a better/longer upgrade path from gen to gen " everything else applies to the current 5xxx series.

The higher IPC, and in turn efficiency, is great. Gaming performance is virtually identical to Intel's 10th-gen offerings though, especially in the vast majority of setups where frame rates will be primarily graphics-limited in most titles. And of course, it's not a good time at all to be building a new system for gaming due to the current graphics card market.

The PCIe 4.0 support is a fine addition, but one that doesn't really make much of a difference to real-world performance today, and something that Rocket Lake will also bring to the table. And it's hard to say whether one platform will handle it better the other at this point.

Unlocked CPUs can be nice when there's a decent amount of overclocking headroom left on the table, but AMD's boost algorithms tend to get the most out of the silicon even without it, and for lightly-threaded workloads those boost algorithms often perform best. So, it's not really a feature worth talking about for the 5000-series processors released so far. Now, if they released more value-oriented models at lower clock rates that overclocked to similar levels, it might be more worth mentioning.

The higher core/thread counts can certainly be useful for those who need them, or at least would be if the 12 and 16-core parts were actually in-stock at their retail prices, and not marked up well into the HEDT price range by resellers due to limited supply. As for the parts you can actually buy, Intel is actually offering more cores and threads for the money at the moment, largely negating AMD's superior multithreaded performance per-core.

While the Ryzen 5000-series is great from a hardware standpoint, a large part of value comes down to pricing, and their current lineup is a lot more expensive than prior generations. Intel's recent price cuts don't exactly help with that. I would be a lot more thrilled about the 5600X if it were competing head to head with the 10600K, rather than the 10700K.

 

[BogdanH]

10600k is $215. What is the $200 5xxx equivalent? AMD does not have an unlocked 5xxx at every price point...

-if you're happy with it's performance... what's the dilemma then? Buy it.
Does Intel offer more expensive CPU that 10600K? Yes, 10900K for example. Would you now say 10900K is not "worth" buying?
My point being, we buy what we need and can afford -at lowest price possible. Usually we must make compromises at that, but we shouldn't deny there just are better CPU's available -and being more expensive doesn't make them not worth to pay for.

And this "unlocked" thing.. it's just Intel's "idea" for how to sell CPU's and boards at higher prices. Even the word "overclock" sounds like a magic in gamer's ears. Many even bought "K" simply because it's "better" -and later never even took a look into BIOS.

AMD changed that paradigm (especially with 5000 series): put CPU into any motherboards and it will run at (almost) full potential. One doesn't need to be a "geek" and no expensive cooling is needed to benefit the performance.
AMD has set prices higher and of course, nobody is happy about that. But if I'm not mistaken, when 10900K launched, it's price was close to AMD 5900X.. so not much has changed really -except brand logo.

 

[TerryLaze]

And this "unlocked" thing.. it's just Intel's "idea" for how to sell CPU's and boards at higher prices. Even the word "overclock" sounds like a magic in gamer's ears. Many even bought "K" simply because it's "better" -and later never even took a look into BIOS.

If this where true then intel would have found a way to make locked CPUs completely useless so that they could actually sell more K CPUs.
But intel not only did not do that they even do allow MCE on locked CPUs and don't even consider it overclocking so you can do it while keeping the warranty and have better performance on locked CPUs than on stock unlocked CPUs.

AMD changed that paradigm (especially with 5000 series): put CPU into any motherboards and it will run at (almost) full potential.

While you will get good performance on any motherboard you can't just get any motherboard and have piece of mind, many mobos overvolt and overwatt causing massive heat on the VRMs causing them to break after a while if you don't cool them properly. (Or adjust settings in bios yourself)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLMd-5yxTAc

One doesn't need to be a "geek" and no expensive cooling is needed to benefit the performance.

The way that AMDs boosting works their CPUs basically are always thermal throttling or in an other way the cooler you can get them the higher they will clock. You can use a cheap cooler to get good performance but expensive cooling is still needed to benefit the performance.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g94rNe4XSGU

 

[BogdanH]

If this where true then intel would have found a way to make locked CPUs completely useless so that they could actually sell more K CPUs.

This way of thinking is quite naive. Having choice of buying non-K CPU was calculated marketing decission -and Intel still sold enough K CPU's. I mean, can't remember when I saw someone recommending non-K CPU to gamer.
It's like selling cars.. there's very affordable base model (to catch the attention), still majority is ready to pay more for "next better" one.

...you can't just get any motherboard and have piece of mind, many mobos overvolt and overwatt causing massive heat on the VRMs causing them to break after a while..

That's typical FUD. I have $110 (X470) board.. is not the cheapest out there, but far from being a "performance" motherboard, and moderate overclocked 5900X runs just fine in it (at about 4-5% performance increase). I'm using $60 air cooler and CPU gets max 78-80°C at full load. I could overclock even more, however I prefer silent PC -and to be honest, it's not worth the hassle for additional 3-4% speed increase.

My opinion is, (manual) overclocking is soon to be forgotten thing. If not sooner, then at least when Intel manages 7nm (or smaller) process -because at that point, electro-thermal tolerances become very tight.

 

[TerryLaze]

This way of thinking is quite naive. Having choice of buying non-K CPU was calculated marketing decission -and Intel still sold enough K CPU's. I mean, can't remember when I saw someone recommending non-K CPU to gamer.
It's like selling cars.. there's very affordable base model (to catch the attention), still majority is ready to pay more for "next better" one.

That's like saying that the customers are so stupid that the company has to tell them what to buy. In soviet Russia CPU buys you.
Of course intel will offer K CPUs if they sell, that's why AMD has X models, offering something is very different from forcing somebody to only buy that.

That's typical FUD. I have $110 (X470) board.. is not the cheapest out there, but far from being a "performance" motherboard, and moderate overclocked 5900X runs just fine in it (at about 4-5% performance increase). I'm using $60 air cooler and CPU gets max 78-80°C at full load. I could overclock even more, however I prefer silent PC -and to be honest, it's not worth the hassle for additional 3-4% speed increase.

Unless you can provide the same amount of data that gamers nexus shows I will tend to believe the professional more than you.

 

[King_V]

purposely stagnating?.. staying behind on purpose.. Who in the world would do that?

Yes. Though it wouldn't be described as that. It would be described as "putting a minimal amount of investment and improvement into the next generation of CPUs."

It was maximizing profits. Offering small performance gains, and touting it as a next-generation processor. Why not? There was no performance competition from AMD.

So, yes, it was intentional maximizing of profits and minimizing investment. Which, funnily enough, is stagnation.

 

[BogdanH]

@King_V
I know what you're saying and I would agree in that context. However twisting words doesn't change the fact, that stagnation is the result of wrong decisions. Decisions (or lack of them) are made with purpose, but the outcome (stagnation in this case) is a result, not a made decision.
Intel sure has a lot of smart people and they sure realized what was going on at AMD three years ago when first Zen was introduced -something new (chiplet design) was on horizon. And I'm (again) sure Intel didn't just think "let them glue those chips.. we will increase speed for another 100MHz" -that would be very close to stagnation on purpose.
As it turns out, problem was, Intel just didn't have proper answer ready. Yes, it did probably put a big amount of work/money into 10nm/7nm process, which sadly didn't gave hoped results -at least not fast enough. Again, there was a will (a decision) for progress, but result was stagnation. Such things can happen to any company at any time.

I'm just sharing my view on all this.. and is not my intention to argue in any way.

 

[King_V]

Not taking it as an argument.

I agree in general with what you say, though, I have to admit, I have a VERY strong suspicion that, while the engineers might've been enthusiastic about pushing things forward, the "bean counters" might well have decided that it shouldn't be given as high of a priority. Got to keep those profit margins up, the stock prices up, etc., the people in that department may have said that a significant investment couldn't be justified.

But that's the cynical side of me making assumptions. Well, the cynical side informed by seeing such short-sighted decisions being made before in various companies.

Once Ryzen appeared, Intel realized they had to get their butts in gear.