Larry Cañonga:

That ain't no octagon...

True - I think it's a dodecahedron.

I'll buy it if the heatsink has the same dodecaedron shape and has a pentagon-shaped fan on each facet !

Larry Cañonga:

That ain't no octagon...

that would be because an octagon is a 2 dimensional polygon, where as the packing is obviously a 3 dimensional polyhedron

schmidtbag:

True - I think it's a dodecahedron.

you are correct, sir.

I think i´m going to buy it just for the box...

Agent-A01:

That's not amazon selling, that is a 3rd party. I wouldn't trust the pricing.

Ships from and sold by Amazon

I think that nearly every re-e-tailer will probably gouge the price a bit initially. MicroCenter initially priced the i7-8700K at $500 USD. Also, there will be all the scalpers trying to buy up all the CPUs so that they can sell them on E-bay for $1000+ USD.

snight01:

lmao, you guys would still buy it even if it was $1200 usd. Don't know why intel didn't put it at $3000 Nvidia will soon do it and everyone will complain but still buy it. Why dont just raise the prices now so the enthusiasts can buy out all the stock.

Actually no, I wouldn't buy it at that price. If I'm looking at a motherboard + RAM + CPU upgrade my limit is usually € 1000. Budget wise I generally always allow myself around € 1000 a year for my PC (excluding accessories such as mice, etc). It's enough to get a decent high end system. It's kind of like a 2 year cycle thing switching between CPU/GPU every 2 years.

Dynarush_333:

I did a new build last year and 1080p is history.

Stop generalizing. From a marketing standpoint, yes 1080p is dead. Which is a good thing, because if the market is pushing towards 4K, the market is overall pushing to eventually get proper framerates for everyone at those resolutions. But in reality were still not there yet. We've just about hit the 60 fps mark for 4K, we're still a long way from home hitting stable 120/144 fps. And I'm not talking about some titles from 2 years ago, I'm talking current gen/next gen. Good luck getting 120/144 fps constant in 4K in BF V for instance without an absolutely bonkers system that'll cost you € 3000 on GPU's alone. Different people will play games in different ways and some of use still prefer that 120/144 fps at 1080p over 4K at 60 fps. In some very specific SP titles I can cope with 60 fps (Metro titles for instance), but in MP shooters it's 120+ or go home for me. Not to mention we're all pretty much enthusiasts on these forums. The amount of (casual) people I've seen that still even game on 1680x1050... albeit with very mediocre systems that would squeal in agony if they even so much as tried to run anything in 1440p or higher.

Agent-A01:

That's not amazon selling, that is a 3rd party. I wouldn't trust the pricing.

Whether the listing was directly from Amazon or a 3rd party seller, it was still listed on Amazon's website....

kroks:

Ships from and sold by Amazon

sykozis:

Whether the listing was directly from Amazon or a 3rd party seller, it was still listed on Amazon's website....

To be fair, the listing was taken down soon after so can't be considered to be genuine. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the price is $550+. It's no surprise that prices of Intel CPUs have been skyrocketing ($399 for a 8700K for some retailers). The original rumored price was $450 but I can't see that as being true anymore. I'm guessing the real price will be $500 - $550, based on how severe the shortage situation is. The 9000-series could not have come at a worse time. If you thought the Coffee Lake shortage was bad at launch, you haven't seen anything yet. By the time that the 9000-series is readily available, Zen 2 will be out. Little wonder why Intel was downgraded today.

D3M1G0D:

The original rumored price was $450 but I can't see that as being true anymore. I'm guessing the real price will be $500 - $550, based on how severe the shortage situation is.

$450 would make sense, since they add additional $100 per 2 cores count. Like below: 8700k (6 cores) - $359 8600k (4 cores) - $257 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Lake But yeah, $450 sounds too good to be true. $499 as a minimum price and add 8 cores complexity production, 14nm shortages and more price cause Intel (duh..). So we more gonna end up like $550 - $650.

yeeeman:

600 dollars for 8 cores? What are they smoking?

They're smoking the year 2006 thinking it's still a monopoly after they finally had a product that beat AMD after a decade of bribing companies to not sell AMD products. Someone should tell them 2006 causes cancer. Honestly I'm so disgusted with Intel that unless it makes absolutely zero sense for my purposes, I'm going to buy an AMD system. I know I'll take a hit going with AMD since I need single core performance, but I don't care. Now time to play the waiting game until Zen 2 architecture is released... the waiting game sucks.

Dynarush_333:

Ryzen does basically the same job at 1440p 144hz bar a few frames, plus pure FPS isn't a measure of frame pacing or minimum frames. This misconception needs to stop. I did a new build last year and 1080p is history. Even the consoles are pushing higher. More and more games seem to be using 8 threads+

The data I've seen shows significant average & minimum frame rate differences in quite a few games when aiming for 144Hz. 7700K and 8700K both show significantly better and more consistent performance if aiming for 144fps (both minimum & average framerates). It doesn't matter what resolution you're running - you can turn down game details to try to achieve 144fps, to remove the GPU bottleneck, so resolution isn't really a factor in these discussions unless the person wants to run on Ultra details without compromise at which point the CPU is not as important and GPU bottlenecks are starting to be seen. If you stream or have lots of other stuff running in the background when you game then there's a good argument to choose a Ryzen CPU though, and certainly for all 60Hz/75Hz monitors, and you can of course have Ryzen with 144Hz but you end up not being as optimised for that situation though.

ivan:

HA! I game @ /1080p/1440p & 140Hz on a Ryzen 1700 OC @ 4GHz with a more then pleasant experience and more then few $$$ saved. And by the way Intel & upgrades doesn't even sound right in the same sentence, unless you are speaking of upgrading your board too. Oh yea, and my x370 board will more then likely support Zen 2, since we are talking about upgrades. Do some research before making those stupid claims buddy.

"Ha! Buddy" - you need to do YOUR research.

yeeeman:

600 dollars for 8 cores? What are they smoking?

It's sad, 1.85 years ago, people would have loved 8 cores for $600, because they kept getting fed the same stuff every year, it would have finally been an improvement in pricing. Thanks AMD!

Robbo9999:

7700K and 8700K both show significantly better and more consistent performance if aiming for 144fps (both minimum & average framerates).

Care to show proof? And not some nonsense youtube channel proof, an actual reviewers proof? Because what you say, have been proven to be the opposite when it came to the 7700k. While the 7700k got higher highs, it also had much higher of a variance in FPS and therefore had a less smooth feeling in many games compared to ryzen. I have not bothered to check this with the 8700k, since the price point still didn't make sense when it was released so it didn't matter. And if your response is to show some youtuber peddling what you are, please don't bother, just don't reply, it's not worth it, it won't be watched and it'll just prove my point.

Seriously that is a very ugly design.It is obvious that Intel is getting hammered hard by AMD, as Hilbert said (it does hint a bit AMD'ish with the Threadripper release packaging). I don't know either what Intel is smoking first releasing the X299 HEDT platform with four core cpus up to 18-core with seriously high power draw and using tim instead of solder. Now they are confusing people with releasing Z399 when AMD already has X399 what's next? Same processor names?

SniperX:

Soldering + 2 added cores + added cache + 14nm shortage

Neither of those. If that was cause for price, they would have no reason for fancy marketing box. That's because intel has mindshare. In contrast to that AMD has to look good and cool as having product of better value is not enough without mindshare. (But that's changing.)

Couldn't resist... https://i.imgur.com/ba0hla2.png

Agent-A01:

That's not amazon selling, that is a 3rd party. I wouldn't trust the pricing.

It's a monolithic die and amongst shortages, and it is also the top of the line CPU. Sounds "normal". This will defeat all AMD CPUs in pretty much everything, but if we go up close to $600 territory, why not get a Thredripper 2920x? You get 50% extra cores, and a FAR superior platform, with the tradeoff being most likely an average of ~10% performance difference in 1080p gaming only. The way I see it, this CPU is DOA. It will be announced again as the new gaming Jesus (as if anyone getting a $600 CPU plays at 1080p), and a lot of people will get it, but meh.

Aura89:

I Care to show proof? And not some nonsense youtube channel proof, an actual reviewers proof? Because what you say, have been proven to be the opposite when it came to the 7700k. While the 7700k got higher highs, it also had much higher of a variance in FPS and therefore had a less smooth feeling in many games compared to ryzen. I have not bothered to check this with the 8700k, since the price point still didn't make sense when it was released so it didn't matter. And if your response is to show some youtuber peddling what you are, please don't bother, just don't reply, it's not worth it, it won't be watched and it'll just prove my point.

Ok, I'll see what I can find, I just remember this being my conclusion when I looked into it a short while back. 8700K: Far Cry 5: https://techreport.com/review/33719/amd-ryzen-7-2700-cpu-reviewed/10 Grand Theft Auto: https://techreport.com/review/33719/amd-ryzen-7-2700-cpu-reviewed/8 Deus Ex: https://techreport.com/review/33719/amd-ryzen-7-2700-cpu-reviewed/7 Crysis 3: https://techreport.com/review/33719/amd-ryzen-7-2700-cpu-reviewed/6 and another one: shows 7700K equal to 8700K and better than Ryzen, albeit 1st Gen: https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,review-34037-7.html 7700K: https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,review-34307-7.html => 7700K not even overclocked and better than Ryzen 2700x I could probably google some more, but that's enough time spent on it. Basically 7700K & 8700K outperforming even Ryzen 2700x, both mins & average frame rates - so this goes with my stance that 7700K/8700K is what you want for 144Hz gaming, not Ryzen. This upcoming 9900K should be pretty good when it comes to gaming too, as well as the 9700K.

HWgeek:

I love my 2700X even more now!

Dats The spirit 😀

yeeeman:

600 dollars for 8 cores? What are they smoking?

They are just stupid dont need to smoke anything