News Raptor Lake Refresh non-K CPUs are seemingly more expensive than prior-gen models — overseas retailer lists non-K CPUs ahead of launch

[Admin]

A Spanish retailer has published several listings of new Raptor Lake Refresh non-K CPUs, revealing pricing data of the new chips.

Raptor Lake Refresh non-K CPUs are seemingly more expensive than prior-gen models — overseas retailer lists non-K CPUs ahead of launch : Read more

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

I don't think this would be a shock to anyone. Increase in cost for nothing new or added. AMD have done it recently, now Intel.

What seems odd to me though, is I have seen builds of current users which had 13900k, and then swapped up (or sideways) to 14900k. I just don't get why someone would fall for that. Same here, with the non k sku's. Nothing over the last gen, only an increase in CPU cost. DOH!

 

[cyrusfox]

I don't think this would be a shock to anyone. Increase in cost for nothing new or added. AMD have done it recently, now Intel.

What seems odd to me though, is I have seen builds of current users which had 13900k, and then swapped up (or sideways) to 14900k. I just don't get why someone would fall for that. Same here, with the non k sku's. Nothing over the last gen, only an increase in CPU cost. DOH!

Sidegrades, I have a 13900 myself (non K). If I can sell and upgrade for nearly the same price, why not?

Some people like to be on the modern highest end and have the money to burn. Also with Arrow Lake potentially being a year out and meteor lake currently showing a bit underwhelming at high power/high performance, we could be facing a gap year similar to what was experienced on 10900k, where the 11900k was not a true uplift (Many cases performance worst).

New gen brings a little boost and APO, but you are right, very small gen on gen improvement... but at least its not a regression😏

 

[TerryLaze]

I don't think this would be a shock to anyone. Increase in cost for nothing new or added. AMD have done it recently, now Intel.

The retailers are marking them up because they aren't even out yet, it's the same that happened with amd and what happens with every single thing that comes out, someone always lists it first for higher than what it will cost when actually released.

 

[Flayed]

It wouldn't surprise me if the USD price matches the Euro price 1:1

 

[Kashmir74]

I don't think this would be a shock to anyone. Increase in cost for nothing new or added. AMD have done it recently, now Intel.

What seems odd to me though, is I have seen builds of current users which had 13900k, and then swapped up (or sideways) to 14900k. I just don't get why someone would fall for that. Same here, with the non k sku's. Nothing over the last gen, only an increase in CPU cost. DOH!

Simply because 14900K is +1000 better than 13900K, it's simple math.

 

[TerryLaze]

Simply because 14900K is +1000 better than 13900K, it's simple math.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html
It's not one single number, it's one generation number and one sku number.
So it's only 1 better.

 

[Kashmir74]

As shown, you can read it as processor number.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Sidegrades, I have a 13900 myself (non K). If I can sell and upgrade for nearly the same price, why not?

True.

Simply because 14900K is +1000 better than 13900K, it's simple math.

I presume you are being sarcastic there!?

 

[bit_user]

Some people like to be on the modern highest end and have the money to burn.

I think the amount of people who do annual upgrades is quite a small, if vocal slice of the overall market.

However, there is a certain upgrade path which I think is justifiable. Say have a 12th or 13th gen i5. Then, you want some more horsepower. Here's where picking up a 14th gen i7 or i9 could make sense.

at least its not a regression😏

Seriously? Since when are we handing out bonus points for not releasing a product that's just objectively bad??

 

[cyrusfox]

Seriously? Since when are we handing out bonus points for not releasing a product that's just objectively bad??

Since the Nvidia 4000, have you met the 4060 ti? it loses to the 3060 ti a couple instances (Reddit post about it).
For CPU's Earliest I remember was Bulldozer vs the 6 core Phenom (also performance regression) as well as Comet to Rocket Lake I spoke of. And from what meteor has shown thus far, there is likely a good reason we are not seeing it on the desktop to avoid repeating that embarrassment.

 

[bit_user]

Since the Nvidia 4000, have you met the 4060 ti? it loses to the 3060 ti a couple instances

Thanks for the clarification.

As I've said in other threads, I think the problem with most of the RTX 4000 series is just that the GPU market crashed, which caused Nvidia and AMD to inflate some of the model numbers relative to how they were originally planning to sell them, in order to justify their pricing. So, it's not actually the performance that regressed, but rather the value. If you cover the model numbers and just look at price/perf, that's the real story.

For CPU's Earliest I remember was Bulldozer vs the 6 core Phenom

Bulldozer was a train wreck. I had a Phenom II, which wasn't bad. It would've competed well against Core 2, but unfortunately it launched against the first Core i-series and couldn't quite keep up. I was hopeful about upgrading to Bulldozer or one of its successors, but my plans quickly changed when I saw what a disappointment it was.

Anyway, I don't think Bulldozer set the minimum bar. I can't say exactly what the minimum bar is, but we've got to hold a standard higher than that.