Agree with Vinnie333, historical pricing would be much more interesting, as well as a comparison between the actual pricing and Intel's official CPU price list. For those that aren't aware, Intel publishes their processor price list every month on their Investor Relations site (intc.com). They have done this for more than 15 years that I can remember. They change the link every couple years, but it's currently located here: https://www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/cpu-price-list/default.aspx
I guess this is paid advertorial by Amazon and NewEgg?
Not sponsored in probably the way you mean, but the whole point of this article seems to be to get click-through purchase revenue. Every time someone clicks one of these links and actually buys the product, Tom's/Purch will get a tiny kickback.
They have these links on all of their reviews, if you haven't noticed. I don't mind it, but when the whole article is nothing but these (and not even a MSRP to compare against), it seems pretty shady.
Microcenter only beats prices on in-store purchases with supplies limited with very few exceptions.
Tom's is not behind a paywall so they have to get their revenue somehow right?
No one is forced to click on any links.
These are current selling prices in the US and are a time saving aggregation in one place.
MSRP has no relevance here this is a snapshot of fluctuating retail pricing.
You can always try PartsPicker, but these list make it clear which CPUs go with Socket Type MBs
For the record, this is not a sponsored article by any third-party companies. We primarily use Amazon and Newegg for our price lists, because (as others have said) they typically have the best pricing. When there is a better price from other retailers (i.e. Walmart, Best Buy, NCIXUS, TigerDirect, etc.) we will link to those retailers as well, but only if the price is lower than Newegg and Amazon. We do not use Microcenter, however, as they do not sell most products online (if they do any at all). It wouldn't be practical to link to them if the majority of our readers in the U.S. won't be able to purchase the item.
We do earn revenue off of these links, but that isn't the reason we produce these articles. We want the price lists to function as a resource of information. We link to reviews and other CPU content whenever possible to help inform readers before making a purchase, and then list the least expensive place online for readers to purchase the products. The hope is that this will make it faster and easier for readers to make informed decisions while purchasing PC components.
The prices are amusing to those outside the US. Take BW-E, for example, Scan in the UK has the following (none of which make sense given the existence of Ryzen):
6800K: 416 UKP (approx. $520)
6850K: 585 UKP (approx. $731)
6900K: 990 UKP (approx. $1237) (this was about 200 higher last week, but it's still way too high; ditto the 6850K)
6950X: 1559 UKP (approx. $1949) (presumably aimed at those with no sense at all)
Much more than the article ref prices. One can chalk up these differences to various things of course, but the reality is that these components, and many others, are a lot more costly than toms' summaries make it seem. Readers in the US should bare this in mind when discussing cost issues with readers who are elsewhere, because in some nations these pricing disparities are even more extreme. In recent months I've seen cases of blatant price gouging, timed most likely to exploit the release of Ryzen, with some memory kits almost doubling in price (has nothing to do with shortage of supply).
Chfireball is right about ebay though; when I built an X99 system late last year, an ebay-based company had the best price for a 6850K (557 UKP), and then there are the joys of the used market (3930Ks have been going for as little as 70 UKP recently, trickier part is finding suitable mbds).
I haven't checked, but I'm sure the same kind of differences are present wrt AMD CPU pricing.