i9-9900K: Ryzen 7 2700X is getting cheaper and cheaper

Ryzen 2000 Ryzen 7 2700X Ryzen 3000 Ryzen 5 3600
(Picture: Screenshot/AMD)

While the Intel Core i9-9900K is really expensive at start, AMD is taking the chance and makes the Ryzen 7 2700X cheaper.

i9-9900K: why so expensive, Intel?

A few days ago, the puzzling about Intel’s first mainstream eight-core processor was finally over. The manufacturer introduced the i9-9900K together with a new Skylake-X generation and the Xeon W-3175X with 28 cores. With soldered heatspreader and once more refined 14nm process, Intel once again tries to get everything out of the architecture, which also shows up in the first OC results. However, the currently called price is still significantly higher than what we expected from Intel launches.

The high price results from several coincidences, but also from a tactic. Intel currently still has massive problems with the 14nm production. Capacities are short, but demand is very high. This problem also occurred during last year’s launch of the i7-8700K, which resulted in equally high prices. This year, the production problem can’t be solved so quickly. However, Intel doesn’t seem to have much interest in it either. The notebook and business processors probably have priority. Intel tries to position the i9-9900K as a premium processor even above the current portfolio. The high prices are probably normal, at least for the initial phase.

Ryzen 7 2700X price drops

While Intel is raising the price, AMD takes a different course. The first Ryzen generation was also priced high at the beginning, but quickly became cheaper. With the second generation, AMD directly dropped the high prices at the launch and brought the top model Ryzen 7 2700X from 359 Euros on. Intel’s competitor generally likes to bet on low prices in order to win Intel market shares. The Threadripper processors also became significantly cheaper as the new generation was just around the corner.

AMD now seems to be using the launch of the i9-9900K to run a marketing campaign. The prices of the Ryzen 7 2700X as a direct competitor of the i9-9900K already dropped a bit. In the United States, the AMD flagship only costs a good 295 US dollars, while the i9-9900K costs at least 530 US dollars in advance. A test paid by Intel first showed a clear performance advantage over the competitor, but the test methods turned out not to be comparable. The revised tests then showed that the i9-9900K is only 13 percent above the 2700X. This means that the performance jump of 13 percent for Intel costs a good 80 percent more compared to the AMD processor.

In Europe, the price of the AMD flagship has not yet dropped, but the price gap is even higher. The cheapest i9-9900K costs at least 699 Euros here, while the Ryzen 7 2700X only costs 309 Euros. i9-9900K buyers currently pay 126 percent extra for 13 percent more performance.

Where’s the Ryzen 7 2800X?

At the presentation of the new Ryzen generation the first rumours about a Ryzen 7 2800X appeared. At that time it seemed logical for AMD to divide its own high-end squad into just two models. But already at the beginning of the year there were the first rumors that Intel could soon launch an eight-core processor. AMD therefore decided to keep the Ryzen 7 2800X as the flagship killer for the eight-core model that was rumoured at the time. Now, after the launch, it might still be possible that the Californian company will take the chance and therefore the price of the Ryzen 7 2700X drops. However, as the new Ryzen generation with its improved Zen 2 architecture and 7nm structure width will not be far away, AMD might simply save the effort and focus on low prices.

About Florian Maislinger 1222 Articles
Florian Maislinger is author and founder of PC Builder's Club. As a skilled IT engineer, he is very familiar with computers and hardware and has been a technology lover since childhood. He is mainly responsible for the news and our social media channels.

1 Comment

  1. It actually has been going up in price continually since this article was written… It should honestly be $250 max. The fact that it keeps going over $300 just shows yet again how fucking stupid consumers / ebay bidders are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.