News It's Now Cheaper To Score A Binned i5-10600K Than Untested Chips off Amazon & Newegg

[Admin]

Amazon is jacking up prices of PC parts, so why not turn elsewhere?

It's Now Cheaper To Score A Binned i5-10600K Than Untested Chips off Amazon & Newegg : Read more

 

[Jack_1055]

I purchased my i9 9900k last year for about $340 USD (I forget what the MRSP was) and that was during a "Holiday Sale". I've been noticing that both New Egg and Amazon prices have been "creeping" up from the MSRP's suggested by the manufactuer of the CPU's (and select other electronic products). I do make sure to check to see if the seller is 3rd party or from the associated store website as I try and only get a direct sale from the associated e-tailer. What I also am wondering is why no one has really "called out" these e-tailers for the gouging that they are doing to customers? Why would news sites want to? Because it's morally needed from many directions. In the current climate we are in there are a LOT (millions) of people who have lost their jobs or are working on reduced hours and pay so this in turn not only hurts the business these products come from but the people who are in the market for purchasing these parts. Basically it's a lose / lose situation all around minus e-tailers like New Egg and Amazon who are profiting of the tragic situations of the people who want to purchase the products. No one asked for this situation to happen and no one wants to be paid less for their work but it's the reality we have at the moment. So, for ANY type of publication to call out these blood leeching companies like New Egg and Amazon who blatently and despicably rip off hard working people or those in dire unemplyment circumstances who did not ask to be in the position they are in deserve to be highlighted everywhere on the internet. This is disgusting, period!

 

[PCWarrior]

These 10600K offerings from Silicon lottery look quite abysmal however, in terms of voltages. Requiring 1.4V for 4.9GHz and 1.425V for 5GHz all core and pricing them $300 and $340 respectively is just a no-no.

The 10700K retails for $387 and is at stock everywhere. And it can achieve those frequencies out of the box and at lower voltages. So rather than buying the 10600K at an inflated price I would rather opt for the 10700K (which is essentially a slightly better 9900K) and enjoy not only better clocks (and hence better single and light threaded performance) but also better multithreaded performance.

Not to mention that there is also the 10700 (which retails for $320 and is also at stock) which is locked but you can unlock power limits and have it turbo indefinitely to its all core turbo boost of 4.6GHz (and can also boost to 4.8GHz for single threaded). And paired with a Z490 you can use XMP; not that the max default of 2933MHz is too bad anyway to begin with (it is not 2666MHz) plus you can tight the timings and achieve pretty much the same effect as higher frequency kits even on B460 boards.

And of course, there is the whole argument of buying Ryzen instead as well, but I am talking when you want specifically to buy Intel and the i5 10600K you should really buy the i7 10700K or the i7 10700 instead.

 

[cryoburner]

But, Silicon Lottery is happily shipping out Intel Core i5-10600K's for $290 after testing their overclocking capabilities. Sure, that's still above MSRP, but you're getting a tested chip that likely runs better than one off Amazon or NewEgg for less money. Seems like a win-win if you ask me.

The $290 ones absolutely won't run better than those off Amazon or Newegg, and chances are they will be worse. Sure, they have been "binned", but that in itself is not a good thing if they've been binned as being among the worst performing chips. According to Silicon Lottery's own numbers posted in this article, 88% of the chips they tested overclocked better than those in this bracket, meaning that the ones selling for $290 are guaranteed to be among the 12% worst performers. And since halfway through that bracket will be the average performance of processors in this tier, that means that on average, there should be about a 94% chance that a random processor bought at retail will overclock better.

And the $295 ones are in the bottom 27% according to them, which is still well below average, and not much better. Again, if you were to buy one at random for the same price on Newegg, there should be around an 80% chance that you will get a better performer than one of those. These two lower tiers are both guaranteed to perform below average, and should really only be worth considering if they are priced lower than other retailers, for those who don't care about overclocking.

The $300 "4.9GHz" tier is the bare minimum you would want to pay to get an average performing chip from their site. It guarantees that you won't get one of the best performers, but also that you won't get one of the worst performers, eliminating the gamble, with the chances of getting a chip that performs better or worse at retail being about equal. It's arguably not worth paying a premium for that, but I guess if one only cares about cutting out the possibility of ending up with one of the worst chips, the option might potentially be worth the current small difference over what other stores are currently selling the processor for.

The only tiers that are guaranteed to run better than average are the top two, and that's why they are being sold for more of a premium. Though unless one is really striving for slightly better per-core performance, and doesn't care at all about heavily-multithreaded performance, they would probably be better off going with an i7-10700K than a top-tier 10600K, or maybe a 3900X if heavily-multithreaded performance is more of a concern. And even around $300 seems a bit much when the 8-core, 16-thread 3700X can be had for around $260, and when there are decent-performing 6-core, 12-thread chips like the 3600 for under $175. If one is building a gaming system, that extra $125+ would probably be better put toward graphics hardware instead.

 

[cryoburner]

I purchased my i9 9900k last year for about $340 USD (I forget what the MRSP was) and that was during a "Holiday Sale". I've been noticing that both New Egg and Amazon prices have been "creeping" up from the MSRP's suggested by the manufactuer of the CPU's (and select other electronic products). I do make sure to check to see if the seller is 3rd party or from the associated store website as I try and only get a direct sale from the associated e-tailer. What I also am wondering is why no one has really "called out" these e-tailers for the gouging that they are doing to customers? Why would news sites want to? Because it's morally needed from many directions. In the current climate we are in there are a LOT (millions) of people who have lost their jobs or are working on reduced hours and pay so this in turn not only hurts the business these products come from but the people who are in the market for purchasing these parts. Basically it's a lose / lose situation all around minus e-tailers like New Egg and Amazon who are profiting of the tragic situations of the people who want to purchase the products. No one asked for this situation to happen and no one wants to be paid less for their work but it's the reality we have at the moment. So, for ANY type of publication to call out these blood leeching companies like New Egg and Amazon who blatently and despicably rip off hard working people or those in dire unemplyment circumstances who did not ask to be in the position they are in deserve to be highlighted everywhere on the internet. This is disgusting, period!

These are brand new processors that came out a little over a month ago, and supplies are likely a bit limited for the time being, so it makes sense that prices will run higher. The alternative would be for the retailers to sell them at MSRP, in which case resellers would buy them all up immediately and resell them for what would likely be even higher prices. The MSRP is only the manufacturer's "suggested" retail price, and no one is saying that the products are required to be sold for that price. The i7-10700K is a very similar processor to the i9-9900K, but the 9900K launched with a $500 MSRP, so plenty of people are willing to pay a bit more than MSRP for the new i7s. The same goes for the new i5s compared to the prior i7s. Intel has shifted core and thread counts to lower price points this generation to better compete with AMD, so even the higher-than-suggested prices near launch tend to be better than what people would have typically been paying for a similar level of performance previously.

As for the whole thing about lots of people not being able to afford these products, who cares? They don't need them. There are other options that come relatively close in performance for far lower prices. The Ryzen 3600 and i5-10400 are also 6-core, 12-thread processors that can currently be had for $172 and $182 respectively, including a bundled cooler, and one would generally be hard-pressed to notice that much difference in performance between one of them and a 10600K. The same goes for the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen 3700X, currently available for as little as $260, while generally performing not all that far behind an i7-10700K or i9-9900K with the same core and thread counts but a bit higher clocks. Those higher-end products are intended as premium offerings for those willing to pay substantially more for a little extra performance. They're a luxury item. Anyone in "dire unemployment circumstances" probably shouldn't even be considering them, as their circumstances might not be so dire if they were making better purchasing decisions.