Intel Comet Lake Desktop pricing leaks reveal pushed down per core pricing

[WYP]

A positive move for Intel, but is this enough to stop AMD?



Read more about Comet Lake Desktop's leaked Canadian pricing.

 

[AlienALX]

So it costs more, doesn't come with a cooler (and would need a very expensive one) and all AMD need to do is drop the price of the 3900x and Intel's release is pretty much over?

I see.

 

[g0ggles1994]

So it costs more, doesn't come with a cooler (and would need a very expensive one) and all AMD need to do is drop the price of the 3900x and Intel's release is pretty much over?

I see.

If I were them, just undercut Intel on price by about £10 for giggles.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

So it costs more, doesn't come with a cooler (and would need a very expensive one) and all AMD need to do is drop the price of the 3900x and Intel's release is pretty much over?

I see.

There's still a market for Intel CPU's... it's just growing smaller and smaller.

 

[Damien c]

Whilst I am still waiting for delivery of my 3950x, all this news of new CPU's is not making me feel very good about my purchase.


Personally if these Intel CPU's were faster than the 3950x then I would have a difficult choice and whilst I do believe for gaming they will be, I don't think they will be for the likes of Video Editing etc.


Then there is the whole Spectre issue, and have these got hardware fixes or are they still as vunerable as previous cpu's and eventually going to loose performance due to software fixes.


Only time and reviews will tell.

 

[Dark NighT]

Just think of it as a 9900K with 2 more cores, more power consumption, a lot more heat and it will not even come close to the 3950x with multithreaded performance

 

[AlienALX]

Just think of it as a 9900K with 2 more cores, more power consumption, a lot more heat and it will not even come close to the 3950x with multithreaded performance

Which is why it makes even less sense.

The 9900k almost has a point (though an expensive one) in that it's 5-10% faster than AMD in gaming. The thing is? adding two cores will not make it faster in gaming. If anything it will make it so much hotter that it throttles more and is thus slower in gaming and uses more power.

This is why AMD never bought Magny Cours to desktop (12 and 16 core Piledriver) because there was just no point. They just carved on with cheap 4 6 and 8 core CPUs.

And like you say, how are they ever going to compete with the 3950x? which will also no doubt drop in price as it has already (by about £30 since I got mine).

And a whole new socket and thus board? at least AMD stick to the same boards for a while.

 

[Dark NighT]

Which is why it makes even less sense.

The 9900k almost has a point (though an expensive one) in that it's 5-10% faster than AMD in gaming. The thing is? adding two cores will not make it faster in gaming. If anything it will make it so much hotter that it throttles more and is thus slower in gaming and uses more power.

This is why AMD never bought Magny Cours to desktop (12 and 16 core Piledriver) because there was just no point. They just carved on with cheap 4 6 and 8 core CPUs.

And like you say, how are they ever going to compete with the 3950x? which will also no doubt drop in price as it has already (by about £30 since I got mine).

And a whole new socket and thus board? at least AMD stick to the same boards for a while.

Exactly right, on top of that we all will be wondering how long it is before intel finally decides to go 7nm or better and tell us, oh those shiny new sockets with 1200 pins, yeah we dumping that one because "insert whatever reason here"

Intel is just kicking a dead horse and just because they are better in one specific area now, gaming, doesn't mean they get to insult its consumers with another platform change and keeping an old design alive which is already getting hampered in performance by security mitigations that are already in place and you can bet on it more will be coming because old architecture.