One of the interesting developments of Intel’s 9th Generation Core processors for desktops, known as the S-series, was that the company decided to release versions of the hardware with the graphics disabled in order to use every chip from the wafer. At the time Intel was criticised on its pricing: it was offering the same processor minus graphics for the same bulk unit cost, with no discount. Today Intel is adjusting its strategy, and pricing these F and KF processors lower than before.

Nearly every 9th Generation Core processor for the desktop has a corresponding graphics-free option: the Core i9-9900K has its Core i9-9900KF, the Core i5-9500 has a Core i5-9500F. The difference between these two parts is just a matter of disabled graphics, which means the user can’t take advantage of Intel’s QuickSync or a display, however most of these processors end up in systems with discrete graphics cards anyway. At the time of launch, Intel priced them identically to the parts that did have graphics, but ultimately retail outlets were selling the K and KF processors at a small discount. Intel’s announcement today makes that price difference official.

Intel 9th Gen Core CPUs
AnandTech Cores Base
i9-9900K 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $488 $488
i9-9900KF 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz - - 2666 95 W $488 $463
i7-9700K 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $374 $374
i7-9700KF 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz - - 2666 95 W $374 $349
i7-9700F 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz - - 2666 65 W $335 $298
i5-9600K 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz UHD 630 1150 2666 95 W $262 $262
i5-9600KF 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2666 95 W $262 $237
i5-9500 6 / 6 3.0 GHz 4.4 GHz UHD 630 1100 2666 65 W $192 $192
i5-9500F 6 / 6 3.0 GHz 4.4 GHz - - 2666 65 W $192 $167
i5-9400 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz UHD 630 1050 2666 65 W $182 $182
i5-9400F 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz - - 2666 65 W $182 $157
i3-9350KF 4 / 4 4.0 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2400 91 W $169 $148
i3-9100 4 / 4 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz UHD 630 1000 2400 65 W $122 $122
i3-9100F 4 / 4 3.6 GHz 4.2 GHz - - 2400 65 W $122 $97

As mentioned when the F and KF processors were first announced, if users were to put a price tag on Intel’s integrated graphics, what would it be? A cynic might suggest that Intel put that value at $0, and is now increasing it to around $25 depending on the part. Depending on how Intel implements its Gen11 graphics (or Gen12) into future desktop processors is going to be interesting, in case we see more F and KF variants in the future.

Intel states that this price change is in effect as of today. As this price change effects its OEM bulk pricing (prices given for 1000 units), it may take some time to filter down to the end-user based on stock levels at retailers and OEMs, for those that don’t already have a price difference.

Related Reading


Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    It is a fair comment. Ryzen 3900X is really just two defective 7nm chiplets, availability has been poor and certainly NOT at MSRP. Intel's i9 9900K is available below MSRP ($450 @ and leads the 3900X is many gaming benchmarks. With hyper threading it's certainly no slouch and can get work done when you need it to. 3950X is the "flagship" part worth waiting for and it was a no-show in September.

    Finally... While everyone is thanking AMD, I would like to point out that Intel has routinely dropped per-core pricing on new HEDT processors:

    10-core Broadwell-E was $1723, while 10-core Skylake-X was only $999.
    8-Core Haswell-E was $999, while 8-core Skylake-X was only $599
    6-Core Ivy Bridge-E was $999, while 6-Core Haswell-E was only $583.

    Yes this year's price drop is a bit bigger than before, but the pattern was there long before AMD entered the market with Ryzen or Threadripper.
  • Korguz - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    " Ryzen 3900X is really just two defective 7nm chiplets " or really, says who ? you have proof if this, or is this just your own opinion ?
    i bet the 9900k also wasnt as MSRP when it was 1st released, your point is????

    according to here : seems for the most part, they are even with games, and even then, the difference on some, is 10 frames or less, and that's with the 3900X having a clock speed disadvantage to boot, imagine if the clocks were the SAME.

    " that Intel has routinely dropped per-core pricing on new HEDT processors:" yea.. probably because intel released the replacement for it :-) and we SHOULD be thanking AMD for the price drops, case in point, look at what intel charges for the Core i9-10980XE, $979, vs $1979 for the Core i9-9980XE. and over all for cascade lake X vs skylake X.
  • _Shorty - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    While there obviously is a huge business/budget PC market that will benefit from having an integrated GPU, there is also a considerable market that does not care about it or want it in there as it will never be used. Yields make such a big impact on their bottom line it is a wonder why they've never bothered to make a second line that omits the GPU entirely, not merely using defective units by disabling the GPU, so as to get a much higher unit count from every wafer. Actually get rid of the GPU from the die altogether so that exactly zero silicon is used for it so that they can get many more CPUs from each wafer.

    QuickSync encoding quality is so horrible when using actually-sane bitrates. Software encoding with x264/x265 is always going to be better because the people adding these QuickSync/NVENC features don't actually care about making quality encodes. They just want another marketing checkbox to fill in. If any features like this would actually work as quickly as they do and also give quality that's comparable to a reasonable target, such as x264/x265's medium preset or better, then they would actually be useful. Most especially if it matched medium or better at streamable bitrates. But their quality at streamable bitrates is so bad. So, so bad.

    If they were smart, they'd do a limited run of such a CPU without a GPU even existing on it just to see how it would actually sell. Sell something equivalent to the 9900K sans GPU, and price it with a discount compared to the 9900K that relates directly to the percentage of silicon saved per die/wafer. Does it make the CPU die 20% smaller? Sell it for 20% less. I think they'd be surprised at just how many they sold. Rather, how quickly it would sell out.
  • Quantumz0d - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Intel should have got rid of that whole iGPU BS on the die, precious die space laid to waste. Uncore power is still there no matter how much the iGPU is idle. Unlocked processors do not need the retarded extra overhead of the iGPU junk, esp the new DCH driver rubbish is horrid.

    I hope their new 10C Cometlake doesn't have that stupid garbage.
  • eek2121 - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link

    IMO it isn't worth it. It actually kills too many valid use cases (quicksync, linux KVM with GPU passthrough without a second discrete gpu, troubleshooting, etc)

    This move is just in response to Zen 2. Intel's way of coming closer to AMD's pricing (AMD Zen 2 based chips don't have integrated graphics)

    Side note: this site is slowly becoming an unuasable ad infested mess. A video with noise right above the comment box that autoplays? Really? Time to turn the adblocker back on or stop visiting anandtech. Purch is slowly killing off tech sites.
  • Beaver M. - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link

    They just admitted they cant fix all the security issues. Not even in the next generation and the one after that, and probably not even in the one after that.
    So why should I pay that much money for insecure CPUs? Huh, Intel?
  • Korguz - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link

    Beaver M
    proof of this ???
  • hanselltc - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link

    Something like a 35 dollar shave across the board? Nice. Still not sure why one would buy anything but an i9 from intel other than compatibility reasons though.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now