We recently reported on the fact that a range of new mainstream Intel desktop processors are coming onto the market without the integrated graphics enabled. This processors, indicated by the ‘F’ designation (not to be confused with Intel’s chips with an integrated fabric, also called ‘F’), have had their specifications released for a short while, except for the price. Intel is now happy to fill that part in.

Intel’s pricing scheme is a little different to AMD. Rather than provide MSRP, or Manufacturer Suggested Retail Pricing, or SEP, Suggested Etailer Pricing, Intel provides ‘tray’ pricing. This value is the company’s list price for OEMs buying literal trays of CPUs, in batches of 1000. We usually write this as ‘1ku’, for one thousand units. OEMs, like Dell or HP or Supermicro, will happily buy thousands of CPUs, often with a single year warranty. This is in stark contrast to the end-user buying a retail unit obviously only wants one processor and often wants a longer (in most cases, the retail box has a three-year warranty).

The on-shelf price of the processor in a retail box, with or without a cooler, is not listed by Intel. The company leaves it up to distributors and then retailers to determine the market value of such a product. This is why the Intel Core i9-9900K, the current flagship of Intel’s 9th Gen Core desktop processor line, has a ‘tray’ price of $488, but actually came to market on Amazon at $582.50, before settling at its current price of $529. This is also why there has been a debate about whether our comparison between the AMD Athlon 200GE ($55 SEP) and the Intel Pentium G5400 ($64/1ku) is suitable, given that only certain regions with an oversupply seem to hit the Intel price point.

With all that being said, here is Intel’s pricing for the new ‘F’ CPUs:

Intel 9th Gen Core CPUs
AnandTech Cores Base
Freq
Turbo
Freq
IGP IGP
Freq
DDR4 TDP Price
(1ku)
i9-9900K 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $488
i9-9900KF 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz - - 2666 95 W $488
i7-9700K 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $374
i7-9700KF 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz - - 2666 95 W $374
i5-9600K 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz UHD 630 1150 2666 95 W $262
i5-9600KF 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2666 95 W $262
i5-9400 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz UHD 630 1050 2666 65 W $182
i5-9400F 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz - - 2666 65 W $182
i3-9350KF 4 / 4 4.0 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2400 91 W $173
Relevant Intel 8th Gen Core CPUs
i3-8350K 4 / 4 4.0 GHz - UHD 630 1150 2400 91 W $168
i3-8100 4 / 4 3.6 GHz - UHD 630 1100 2400 65 W $117
i3-8100F 4 / 4 3.6 GHz - - - 2400 65 W $117

The only CPU in this list which doesnt have a non-F is the overclockable Core i3-9350KF, showing a 1ku price of $173, which is a few dollars more than the previous generation Core i3-8350K ($168/1ku), and has a turbo frequency. 

Normally when a part of a processor is fused off, usually cores, we expect to see a decrease in the listed price. In this instance, Intel is putting the same tray price on its GPU-free processors to make them also savings-free. Given how tray price is often not connected to the retail price, it will depend on how many processors actually make it to market or to retail (if any end up in retail packaging) to see if they will actually be sold at a lower price than the parts with integrated graphics.

POST A COMMENT

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • Irata - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Personally, I do not see where the iGPU is of much use in any of the higher end desktop CPU for most customers. I doubt too many run their 9xxx series CPU with the iGPU rather than a higher end external GPU, so there is really very little (if any) added benefit to it.

    For lower tier CPU (i.3, i5) which are run in office type systems, having the iGPU makes sense as it saves money by removing the need for an external GPU.

    As for pricing - if the iGPU block is completely removed (i.e. smaller chip), then it should be cheaper as manufacturing cost is lower. If it is simply fused off, then the cost is the same.
    Reply
  • Exodite - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    The cost for Intel is irrelevant though.

    The 9700K is literally the same chip as the 9900K, only with HT disabled. The other high-end chips are the same silicon as well, only with cores fused off.

    No one expects to pay the 9900K price for their 9700K or 9600, as those lack features the first chip have. While the IGP may not be /as important/ as additional cores or HT for most users it still provides functionality above nothing at all.

    Ie. it's still product segmentation and should be priced accordingly, even if it's a lower cost reduction than some of the other features.
    Reply
  • beersy - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    You are completely missing the boat on all of this. These are chips they most likely couldn't sell as their full fledged brothers, so they are repackaging them and trying to sell them for the same price? Why would they charge the same for what is in-essence scrap processors?

    Further there are a lot of people who want fast cores and QuickSync which is built into the iGPU for content creation. I am one of these. I can use the processing cores to help with my day to day stuff and the iGPU can do some (albeit less effective than software) hardware encoding/transcoding. These are worthless to me. This is a lot of the reason I don't buy AMD high end processors.
    Reply
  • woggs - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    By that logic, if they didn't sell those "scrap" processors, the price of all the others would be higher. Lower supply = higher price (unless AMD fills the void). But I agree they should be priced a bit lower, which is likely to actually happen at retail because individual CPU buyers will only chosen the the obvious better one with no price difference. We'll find out soon enough... Reply
  • beersy - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Every generation would have had these failed iGPU processors and they didn't sell them. They clearly set their prices with NOT selling these processors. It is only because they have the CPU shortage that they are selling these bad processors and doing so without any sort of discount. Reply
  • woggs - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    The balance of supply, demand and competition is how prices get set. Buy what ever you want. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. And let's see what the actual retail prices settle to... This article is click-bait. A dog whistle to intel haters. Go get an AMD CPU... Reply
  • woggs - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    This reminds me of a story about an old great uncle (never knew him personally). He was a salesman and had a small shop similar to a pawn shop. He had a set of crystal glasses. A lady comes in and wants one glass. She sees one of them has a small chip.... "Hey, this glass has a small chip. Can you sell this one to me for 50 cents instead of a dollar?" Uncle picks it up and inspects it... "You're right! This is not acceptable and he turns around, tosses the chipped glass in the garbage, shattering it and then raises the price on the rest of the glasses.... "Would you like any of the remaining ones?" And she did... Reply
  • ratbert1 - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    These chips are not just chips with good iGPU that they are choosing to fuse off. These are chips that would go in the recycle bin because they could not sell them as K chips because of the faulty iGPU. It is a good marketing move to get money for something instead of throwing away. However, the perceived value is less because there is less function available. So pricing them the same is shameful.
    However, maybe there are not that many and they don't care how many they sell. They will probably sell some. It is the "Build it and they will come" philosophy.
    Reply
  • Teckk - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    The Turbo will be still the same as the processors with graphics?won't there be some headroom, or is it for overclocking? Reply
  • jordanclock - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    There is zero expectation of higher overclocking. These are expected to be entirely the same, but with a function removed. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now