Comments Locked

23 Comments

Back to Article

  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    It's a new CPU and the supply chain hasn't caught up with demand yet. OEMs will get first grab at them because of their buying power. It should be no surprise that there's no stock and that the list prices are notably higher than MSRP. I wouldn't even call this price gouging since you can't even make a purchase at the current, inflated prices unless you're willing to preorder.
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Just a FYI amazon in stock is never right, per amazon it only reflects in stock at time of checking page, they get multiple orders per day delivery unlike traditional places. When the 1080Ti was released, most people who ordered it got it even when said out of stock for example.
  • FastElectrics - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    In this case the Amazon "Currently unavailable" is right. I preordered on October 13th, and haven't gotten an email yet on when it will be available. I would think they would have the decency to fill preorders before dribbling out 50 or whatever a day to people that order now...
  • jhh - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    After the K version stock stablizes, do we expect cheaper non-K versions like in the past? I don't expect to overclock, but don't want to pay overclocking premiums either.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Yes. Not sure if the full lineup's been officially released, but leaks have gotten out. Tom's has a full listing at the bottom of this article:

    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-9th-genera...
  • IGTrading - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    I think it is very important to mention the True TDP next to the marketing one. 95W <> 200 W.

    In any other year, Intel would have screamed about this.

    It would have called AMD's CPUs not only "glued" , but "omelet makers" .

    For 100% if the regular customers out there, we (the specialists) have an obligation to clarify that the performance advertised is only achieved when a 200W cooler is installed and that this level of performance is IMPOSSIBLE with a regular 95W cooling system that respects the Thermal Design Power rating of 95W, IMHO.
  • Dragonstongue - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    could not agree more...the cpu makers (and gpu sometimes) need to revise their concept(s) of using TDP naming scheme.
    if in the "real world" the cpu will NEVER go beyond say 95w, then say max TDP of 95w.
    if normal use will allow the cpu to sometimes hit 130w say "TDP up to 130w" etc.

    better the consumer knows what they are buying instead of finding out the "hard way"
  • edzieba - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link

    What you're looking for is 'steady state TDP' vs 'peak power draw'. For the 'regular customers' steady-state TDP is going to be the important factor (well, that and idle draw) as that's the state it's going to be operating in for 99.999% of the time. Running a CPU with a sustained power virus workload is the exception in normal use, and a cooler that can maintain the rated steady-state TDP can happily tolerate peak high power loading as designed (because heat transfer is nonlinear).

    This isn't an "Intel bad, everyone else good" scenario. This is just how every CPU (and GPU, and mobile SoC) works and has for the last decade. Nobody would build a CPU that does not shape its power envelope to available workload and thermal overhead, because it would be silly to leave that performance on the table.
  • eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Good article, but please add a price check of the i7 8700K and the 8086 also. Many who are currently thinking of building a system are looking at one of those two as a more affordable and available alternative. However, the current shortage of i9 chips and Intel's manufacturing problems have driven the prices of those two up quite a bit, too.
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Why buying Intel at these prices? AMD is there and they cut their prices.

    If you don't play at 1080p with a 1080 TI, then buying AMD will not make much performances differences... but your wallet is going to feel a huge relief.
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    "If you don't play at 1080p " So no one then?
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    It is all coming back to CPU bottleneck. CPU bottleneck occurs with really fast GPU at lower resolution. As of now, real CPU bottleneck occurs with performances similar to a 1080 GTX at 1080p.

    If you play with a 1070 GTX or below, CPU bottleneck will be way smaller on performances.

    Basically, if you have a an RX 580, almost any CPU at 1080p is going to have similar performances. Forget the 20-30% performances gap, we are talking 5-10% +- 5%.

    So basically, you will need to an enthusiasm CPU and an high end GPU to see an effect at 1080p... at this point you get frequency higher than 144Hz which is making even less sense outside of bragging rights.

    These are the reasons why this benchmark is not a general Use Case, however it is a specific one only real for a marginal % of systems.

    We all know, at 1440p and 2160p, the GPU become the bottleneck, so these bench makes even less sense since people using a 1080 TI do not play at 1080p. I am at 2160p, so any CPU will render the same performances.
  • Flying Aardvark - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link

    Rounding up, about 6% of gamers based on the Steam hardware survey are using resolutions over 1080P. Too small to matter, unless you're on of those. I've also noticed that most people with systems like that, don't tend to actually play games often or at all anyway. They're into buying things, and talking about gear on forums.
  • valinor89 - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link

    Considering that "Intel CPUs speeding between 3.3GHz and 3.69GHz sit at the top of the charts" and "12.50 percent of Steam’s customers rely on the GeForce GTX 1060 graphics card followed by 9.59 percent with the GTX 1050 Ti. Surprisingly, only 2.23 percent have the GTX 1080 installed." in august of this year I would consider that yes, most players might play at 1080p or below...

    But reallistically, those players are not whoever buys these CPU.
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Well, guess AMD is going to sell like crazy outside of North America.
  • willis936 - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    Gee it's almost like there's a financial incentive to move to smaller process nodes. 🤔
  • jewie27 - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    I think it's total BS that Intel has "launched" the product and there are none available. I have the motherboard, DDR4, RTX 2070 on waiting and I can't get the 9900k. Also it's not right for Intel to announce the "MSRP" and then the prices go up from $488 to $580.
  • eva02langley - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    If you are building a gaming PC, you know that buying a 2700x + 2080 TI + motherboard will cost you the same as a 9900k + 2070 RTX + motherboard?

    I would honestly just send back your stuff and get a 2700x, a good B450 motherboard and a 1080 TI.

    If you are doing compute, a TR platform will make even more sense than this aberation.
  • euler007 - Tuesday, October 30, 2018 - link

    The 2700x got beaten by a 8600k on pretty much every benchmark in the 9900k review. He doesn't look strapped for cash, if he was 8600k + 2080TI would be a better gaming choice. But his friends with 2700x would kick his ass in cinebench and superpi.

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen...
  • mkaibear - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link

    So... You're happy with capitalism when a surfeit of supply drives prices down but unhappy with it when a surfeit of demand drives them up?
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link

    How did you end up using Kiebel.de as one of the German sites? It has 2 reviews on "Geizhals.de", a price comparison website. I've never heard of it, buying PC components online for over 15 years now. Mindfactory and alternate.de are much more well known and also have several subsidiaries that are well known as well.
  • valinor89 - Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - link

    "Intel did not change core count of its flagship mainstream desktop CPUs from 2006 to 2017 while slowly increasing core count of its high-end desktop processors. There are many reasons why this happened, but luckily Intel introduced its six-core mainstream chips in 2017 and now it brings eight-core mainstream CPUs to the market."

    Pure luck, no way the competition had any effect.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now