Intel reportedly considers CPU price cuts to defend market dominance

CPUs are getting cheaper, and that's a great thing for PC builders.



Read more about Intel's rumoured plans to reduced CPU pricing in response to Zen 3.

Thank you AMD. We have missed you all those years.

Actually, this is just returning to real prices without Intel's God syndrome tax.

Yeah because intel's prices were always inflated any way.

I like how they're "considering" it. As if they have a choice.

They will just do what most of the companies did for "Black Friday" and is knock £0.01p of each one.

IIRC OCUK knocked 1p of a item for Black Friday and so did Scan, cannot remember exactly what the item was but I laughed when I saw it.

Intel will not release a CPU at a decent price, just like nVidia will not release a graphics card at a decent price because they have little to no competition, I know AMD are close to Intel on the CPU front but Intel still have the better CPU's for gaming by a few % and to some people that few % matters so they will continue to pay inflated prices, and whilst that happens Intel will continue to milk people.

I could have recently bought a 3900x and replaced my 7700K but when I looked at it, the 3900x was not worth buying for me because it's only going to gain me about 5%, and the only thing that pc with the 7700K gets used for is gaming and I am not paying upwards of £700 for a new board, cpu and ram just for 5 to 10%.

Damien c said:

They will just do what most of the companies did for "Black Friday" and is knock £0.01p of each one.

IIRC OCUK knocked 1p of a item for Black Friday and so did Scan, cannot remember exactly what the item was but I laughed when I saw it.

Intel will not release a CPU at a decent price, just like nVidia will not release a graphics card at a decent price because they have little to no competition, I know AMD are close to Intel on the CPU front but Intel still have the better CPU's for gaming by a few % and to some people that few % matters so they will continue to pay inflated prices, and whilst that happens Intel will continue to milk people.

I could have recently bought a 3900x and replaced my 7700K but when I looked at it, the 3900x was not worth buying for me because it's only going to gain me about 5%, and the only thing that pc with the 7700K gets used for is gaming and I am not paying upwards of £700 for a new board, cpu and ram just for 5 to 10%.

Click to expand...

That isnt really true anymore. You need to think mainstream not flagship. 5700XT and the like are a massive success from AMD.

Warchild said:

That isnt really true anymore. You need to think mainstream not flagship. 5700XT and the like are a massive success from AMD.

Click to expand...

That maybe true but the price of the flagship hardware dictates the price of the lower end stuff.


With Intel and nVidia having little to no competition for so long at the high end the prices have been going up and up.


The only way the prices are going to drop is for AMD to compete at the high end at a lower price than Intel and nVidia.


They are doing that on the CPU front, but they need to beat the performance of Intel in everything whilst being cheaper.


That is what will force Intel to drop the price to a resonable level.


Same goes with graphics cards if AMD can bring a card out that offers the same performance and features as a 2080Ti for less than £800 or £900 then people will flock to it and nVidia will be forced to drop the price.


I would love to go all AMD but at the moment they offer nothing that is worth me purchasing because they have nothing that really performs better than I currently have, other than for my server machine which would be for rendering videos, and that would be better going threadripper than ryzen.

Sorry but the hard data thoroughly disproves the above, AMD has done amazingly well in forcing Intel and NVidia's effective prices down in the bulk of the market, price cuts in the under £300 area for both companies have been rampant, and Intel now offers x2 the CPU you'd get pre-Ryzen for your money to 90% of their customers, and this is the bread and butter of the industry.

AMD hasn't had to compete with Intel's 9900K to make Intel cut their prices on 99% of their sales units and the same goes for NVidia.

In fact, competing with these niche flagship products that only make up <0.5% of market-share is likely to have 0 affect at all on the rest of the market, you just don't get that same kind of free and open competition in these niche price points where people will pay anything for the best. If AMD just released a "2080Ti killer" without effective responses to the lower stack first, NVidia could chop £300 off the RTX2080Ti and still have enough headroom to not have to lower prices of 99% of their cards sold.

AMD absolutely has to work from the mainstream up if they want to force price cuts to NVidia, a full frontal assault on the halo products is useless until the rear guard is up.

Mainstream is a joke these days. Used to be $200-$300. Now it's going up and up... 5600xt is just lucky to get in this price range.

Nah, you can statistically prove this isn't the case, and that the difference is that "enthusiast" grade now goes way above the mainstream. Using launch prices for all, the performance gap from a GTX660 ($214) to a GTX680 ($500) is still exactly the same as between a GTX1660 ($229) and an RTX 2070 ($499), at ~56% on average. Only the marketing bracket changed(X80 is now X70 and so on).

The difference now is that they also can make the very top end cards way faster than mainstream, with the top end card now 96% faster than the $200 card, rather than 56% faster.

The driving factor is that people in the top end now use screens with x4 the pixels than people in the low end, so that range in performance is somewhat necessary. But no one is paying more for the same amount of power, if you're paying more it's because you have the choice to pay more and choose to make that choice.

Your opinion. I think it's a joke.

I didn't offer any opinion there, my opinion is that I'd never spend over £200 on a GPU if it was purely for gaming(I just don't play that much or particularly intensive stuff).

The fact, however, is that NVidia's $500 GPU is the same degree faster than their $200 GPU in 2019 as it was in 2012, and that you couldn't get any better than their $500 GPU for one card back then. How they price their expensive cards comes down to what their target market are willing to pay for them, and while I can't at all relate to those who would drop over £1k on a GPU, the fact that people do it means it's viable for NVidia to do, and the fact NVidia still offers the same value proposition as they always have in the traditional parts of the stack means they're not screwing anyone now any more than they were many years ago unless someone actively chooses it.

Once again your opinion. I think mid-range is a joke until the 5600xt came along. Disagree all you want. I DON'T have to agree with you.

This is absolutely hilarious.

Just read a review of the i9-10900X. 10 core, 20 thread.

It benches practically identical to my 1920x both stock and overclocked. Yes it has an advantage at single thread but the 1920x has two more cores and threads.

Why am I posting this "nonsense"?

The i9-10900X costs £689.

Right now you can buy a 1920x for £200 or dollars. A X399 Aorus is £260 and 32gb quad channel costs about £150.

£610. Before any one says about single core performance I'd counter with two more cores and threads, and 20 extra lanes.

If this is Intel's idea of cutting prices then they need to put down the crack pipe, and spend the afternoon on Amazon looking at what you can get for £610 in the HEDT space.

NeverBackDown said:

Once again your opinion. I think mid-range is a joke until the 5600xt came along. Disagree all you want. I DON'T have to agree with you.

Click to expand...

You miss the point, I don't disagree with that statement at all, like I said, my opinion is that anything over £200 isn't worth it. But that doesn't change the fact how the stack lines up, in purely mathematical raw performance figures, hasn't changed in the $500 and below market, which was all the market before the first Titan came out.