Intel Notifies Partners of Upcoming Price Cuts

DejaWiz

Oracle of Unfortunate Truths
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,523
Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.

What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
2,187
And this is the AMD effect...

A 3700x (or two) will find its way inside some of my rigs.
Amen

Oh but if you're da bestest gaming cpu surely wouldn't need to reduce pricing eh? This is pretty funny to see after that vp statement last week.
I went full Intel after Bulldozer but was full AMD before that. I'm just glad there is reasonable competition in the space again.
 

DejaWiz

Oracle of Unfortunate Truths
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,523
I went full Intel after Bulldozer but was full AMD before that. I'm just glad there is reasonable competition in the space again.
I did the exact same thing. AMD since the AM386SX days, all the way up until Bulldozer reviews pushed me to buying my 3770K back on its release day.

It's relieving to have a solid choice between brands again, now that Zen2 and upcoming Zen3 are hanging just fine.
 
Last edited:

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,527
This is why competition is a good thing.
This is why I want AMD's GPU division to do better.
So I can get muh intel and nvidia cheaper.
I realize that you might be being sarcastic there but, if the only reason you want AMD to do better is so that you could buy the Nvidia product cheaper, than you are doing it wrong. Besides, it has only been just over 2 years since AMD started becoming competitive in the cpu space, not going to happen overnight in the GPU space, regardless of what some were hoping for.
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,714
Let me think.. I had a Cyrix P120 (100Mhz, but supposed to perform like a 120Mhz. But the performance was overstated iirc... didn't really like it. Ran into the occasional incompatible software as well.)
Then an AMD K6 something
Then an AMD Athlon in a slot - this died thanks to CapacitorGate and an abit mobo that took a shit and fried it and the PSU.
Then an AMD duron I think? bare silicon chip on an nForce2 chipset mobo (loved that mobo, the onboard audio was great)
Then an Athlon XP
Then an Athlon 64 x2 4200. I think I eeked about 3 years out of this... but by early 2009 when I went Intel, it was slow. All the prior systems had lifespans of only 1 to 1.5 years.
Then an Intel i7-920 2.67Ghz oc'd to 3.6Ghz on air. Ran this for 6.5 years! (Feb 2009 to Nov 2016) Was such a big upgrade at the time, so much faster. I splurged and bought 12Gb ram, ran it like that for 5 years and no swap file. upgraded to 24Gb with cheapo ram.
Then my current build, i7-6850k oc'd to 4.0Ghz, 64Gb ram Shit luck on my oc with this one, can't even get the ddr-3467 corsair dominator ram (4 16Gb sticks) to run past 3000... need some tips. the timings defaulted to the rams' specs all except cas, which chooses 17 vs the spec'd 16, but still no boot. rampage V edition 10 hangs on post code bd, a ddr detection code.

But these Intels have had good lifespan, and made me a fan for sure. I hope the ryzen 3k's can achieve about 4.5Ghz and finally have a competitive IPC. Might be swayed but I don't think I will need to upgrade for a few years yet (hopefully). I'll upgrade the 1080Ti likely before anything else.

The price drops are good, need more of them.
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
250
I realize that you might be being sarcastic there but, if the only reason you want AMD to do better is so that you could buy the Nvidia product cheaper, than you are doing it wrong. Besides, it has only been just over 2 years since AMD started becoming competitive in the cpu space, not going to happen overnight in the GPU space, regardless of what some were hoping for.
Not even being /s
Im rooting heavily for AMD so I can get better and/or cheaper intel and nvidia products.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,462
Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.

What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?

This stuff rarely leaks before it happens.

When I read this, I'm thinking it's Intel intentionally leaking it, essentially trying to make this argument:

"Really Guys, cheaper and better shit is coming, don't buy AMD yet" without actually having to sacrifice anything in the way of pricing.

It's the oldest tactic in the book. Whenever you are behind, say or do anything you can to delay the consumer buying the competitors product because you have something better/cheaper around the corner.
 

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,527
Not even being /s
Im rooting heavily for AMD so I can get better and/or cheaper intel and nvidia products.
Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else? That is the very attitude that causes the GPU prices to remain higher than many want them to be. Oh well, Nvidia is not going to lower their prices because you are clearly willing to pay them. As for Intel, they will reduce their prices as little as they can get away with, as well.
 

Fremunaln

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
179
So it has finally unofficially happened. I assume why they were practically giving away the 9700K, with Motherboard, and ram for $570 on newegg the other day lol. Prices really have started to normalize again.
 

ochadd

Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
929
If Intel ever decides to get serious about discounting they would destroy AMD momentum. If Intel adjusts pricing so the price to performance ratio is correct in the marketplace this will be another blip of a CPU release cycle. If there's still scenarios like a 7900x @ $970 like it is today there could be trouble for them.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,123
We live in interesting times. (ancient Chinese curse). If amd has the ability to mark. Down their cpu's by a small margin it will be a crazy time to buy. I'm hoping for bonus season a new cpu and mobo with ram. I have the itch to go amd. 12 or 16 core.
 

[21CW]killerofall

Aliens...
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,202
Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else? That is the very attitude that causes the GPU prices to remain higher than many want them to be. Oh well, Nvidia is not going to lower their prices because you are clearly willing to pay them. As for Intel, they will reduce their prices as little as they can get away with, as well.
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Let me think.. I had a Cyrix P120 (100Mhz, but supposed to perform like a 120Mhz. But the performance was overstated iirc... didn't really like it. Ran into the occasional incompatible software as well.)
Then an AMD K6 something
Then an AMD Athlon in a slot - this died thanks to CapacitorGate and an abit mobo that took a shit and fried it and the PSU.
Then an AMD duron I think? bare silicon chip on an nForce2 chipset mobo (loved that mobo, the onboard audio was great)
Then an Athlon XP
Then an Athlon 64 x2 4200. I think I eeked about 3 years out of this... but by early 2009 when I went Intel, it was slow. All the prior systems had lifespans of only 1 to 1.5 years.
Then an Intel i7-920 2.67Ghz oc'd to 3.6Ghz on air. Ran this for 6.5 years! (Feb 2009 to Nov 2016) Was such a big upgrade at the time, so much faster. I splurged and bought 12Gb ram, ran it like that for 5 years and no swap file. upgraded to 24Gb with cheapo ram.
Then my current build, i7-6850k oc'd to 4.0Ghz, 64Gb ram Shit luck on my oc with this one, can't even get the ddr-3467 corsair dominator ram (4 16Gb sticks) to run past 3000... need some tips. the timings defaulted to the rams' specs all except cas, which chooses 17 vs the spec'd 16, but still no boot. rampage V edition 10 hangs on post code bd, a ddr detection code.

But these Intels have had good lifespan, and made me a fan for sure. I hope the ryzen 3k's can achieve about 4.5Ghz and finally have a competitive IPC. Might be swayed but I don't think I will need to upgrade for a few years yet (hopefully). I'll upgrade the 1080Ti likely before anything else.

The price drops are good, need more of them.
Yet its not about Intel so much, as it is speed became good enough for longer. Im still using my A8 desktop.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,471
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).
They wont drive that price segment down for GPU's they have learned how you have used them for this purpose. All 3 companies will be content with lower volume and high margins.
 

odditory

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,868
Then you are doing it wrong. Why would AMD support you just so you can buy from someone else?
Oh honey, you cant be that naive. Monolithic megacorps don't "support" anyone but their shareholders. Certainly not joe gamer wearing his red Make AMD Great Again hat.

If AMD were in Nvidia and Intel's marketshare positions, they'd be behaving exactly the same. And would be legally obligated to do so. We already see it in the high pricing for their upcoming low-mid-tier GPUs.
 

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,527
Oh honey, you cant be that naive. Monolithic megacorps don't "support" anyone but their shareholders. Certainly not joe gamer wearing his red Make AMD Great Again hat.

If AMD were in Nvidia and Intel's marketshare positions, they'd be behaving exactly the same. And would be legally obligated to do so. We already see it in the high pricing for their upcoming low-mid-tier GPUs.
:confused:o_O(n):D Oh honey, you can't be that uninforme...... Oh wait, never mind.
 

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,527
He is not "doing it wrong." I am in the same boat as Verado. I have a GSync monitor that basically forces me to stay with the Nvidia cards (there is no Freesync monitor that is 1440P 165Hz IPS like my Gsync is that I am aware of and I don't want to drop more money down for a new monitor either). I want AMD and Intel to produce competitive GPUs to help drive down prices across the board so I can also benefit by the lower prices of the Nvidia GPUs. On the CPU side, I always just go with the top performer for my needs (in both cost and raw computing performance) when it is my time to upgrade and it just so happened that my last 2 CPUs were Intel (all of the others were AMD before that) and I am not upgrading my CPU for at least another year or 2 (running a 6700k).
You choose to go with G Sync so suck it up buttercup, you will have to pay to play. :D :) ;) Not really my problem nor AMD's problem that you invested in the expensive solution. I choose Freesync and it has worked out well for me, as well as the AMD hardware I own for my personal machine. Basically, it is not AMD's job to support you or the competition so you can spend less on someone else.
 

ManofGod

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,527
They wont drive that price segment down for GPU's they have learned how you have used them for this purpose. All 3 companies will be content with lower volume and high margins.
Bingo! If some here believed their own rhetoric about AMD just being a business in for it all for themselves, they would not be bothered by AMD pricing but shrug they shoulders and move on. If I would looking for a new card, I would seriously consider the Radeon VII or 5700XT, although the Nitro version of the Vega 64 would be a nice way to go, as well. Also, AMD is pricing their new cards at release for less than their previous cards at release and they are also faster.
 

defaultluser

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
12,957
Who didn't see this one coming? No really, we've known these things were overpriced since they were released (zero price cuts versus the previous generation, just a new high for i7 and i9 prices). And now that AMD is matching the on core. count and IPC, it means price cuts!

It's price-cuts all-around (of $50 to $100) for all the K-series processors. I could see Intel add HT to some "Emergency Edition" Core i5 9600k EE and i7 9700k EE processors (to better compete with 3600x and 3700x)?
 
Last edited:

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,679
15% is not enough. The 9900k should be $350. $400 at most if they want compete with Ryzen 2.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,241
15% is not enough. The 9900k should be $350. $400 at most if they want compete with Ryzen 2.
Do they have an non-k 9900 yet?

One bin down on boosts, or even higher all-core boosts (at stock) and one bin down on max single-core boost, and call it a day. Make a decent 'plug-and-play' solution if they price it right.
 

TordanGow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,413
Can't read the whole article, since I'm not gonna register on that site.

What the reasoning? Clearing stock to make room for the next gen, or reactive marketing to the competition?

In two weeks AMD's Ryzen 3000 family of processors arrive. Looks to me like Intel is concerned about the effect they may have on chip sales.
 

TordanGow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1,413
Soon: Intel is the value brand and people are buying Intel because AMD has taken over the enthusiast market again. Also it's now the Year 2002 again.
If this mean the return of Fred Durst and Limp Bizkit, I'll have to ask for the future back.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,022
Amen



I went full Intel after Bulldozer but was full AMD before that. I'm just glad there is reasonable competition in the space again.
You and many of us. I don't care what I have so long as its the best bag for the buck. Had an athlon xp, opteron 165 and then jumped to Intel with the core2. Still running a i5 skylake for now it does the job.
 
Top