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
Freq
Turbo
Freq
IGP IGP
Freq
DDR4 TDP Old
Price
(1ku)
New
Price
(1ku)
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

 

POST A COMMENT

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • AshlayW - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    There's plenty of alternatives: Ryzen 7 3700X or 3800X are great examples. However, I agree that a 6/12 would be nice in the current lineup of Intel Core parts. You may find a discount on an i7-8700 perhaps? Reply
  • bolkhov - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link

    i7-8700 is 6/12.

    8xxx and 9xxx CPUs in fact belong to a single lineup, as well as 7xxx and even 6xxx.
    (Besides new stepping (with hardware mitigations for Spectre+Meltdown) in *some* 9xxx SKUs.)
    Reply
  • AshlayW - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Disgusting anti-consumer company. Yes, they've actually now reduced the price of these salvaged parts, but the fact that it's taken them this long is appalling. I'm so glad you don't 'have' to buy Intel these days for the highest performance, efficiency and features. Because nobody should be supporting this company willingly in 2019. Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    AMD is no princess either. Advertised max turbo speeds for Ryzen 3000 parts were an exaggeration. 3900X pricing hasn't reached MSRP now months after the launch. And 3950X was announced and then failed to reach market on schedule. Competition is great, but it has to be more than a promise, you have to deliver. So hard to buy AMD when they drop the ball so frequently. Reply
  • Alistair - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Come on, there was a bug that limited the turbo boosts by 25mhz, that was not noticeable. And none of the Ryzen systems I've built with Asus boards ever had a problem, depends on the board that you bought, and the problem has been fixed anyways. The 3900x has been MSRP since launch (and I was able to buy one the first week), if you don't know how to buy a CPU, that's on you. Don't pay attention to online listings, there are 10 x 3900x in the store near where I live. I own a 9700k, and not surprisingly, my 3900x is WAY faster for work. Reply
  • ilt24 - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    @Alistair ... "Come on, there was a bug that limited the turbo boosts by 25mhz"

    There was a patch that provided an extra 25Mhz to 50Mhz, but this still doesn't mean all Ryzen's are hitting their advertised boost speeds.
    Reply
  • Slash3 - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    To be fair, 3900X supplies have been exceedingly poor outside of some regional Microcenter stores and the occasional ten minute in-stock notification. Most vendors have now priced the CPU at ~$570 rather than the $499 MSRP (as found at Best Buy and the occasional Amazon listing).

    As of right now, it's in stock at both Amazon and B&H Photo for ~$570, for anyone trying to track one down.
    Reply
  • Korguz - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Slash3, maybe where you are.. no problem getting them here 90% of the time Reply
  • alufan - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Hmm dont think thats a fair comment, issue was with a software error that was fixed, AMD has never said all cores will boost too x on any CPU as for drop the Ball lets not mention the security issues with intel, the anti competitive actions that saw huge fines or the fact they have blatently overcharged for years for a CPU that has not got a hope of staying within its TDP rate.
    AMD is simply making a decent profit on a good product they are no longer required to be bargain basement products but still they are more reasonable than intel as can be seen from intels recent need to drop prices to try and compete with a better product its called competition and its great for us the consumer
    Reply
  • Alistair - Monday, October 7, 2019 - link

    Intel's 8086k was for one thread only, AVX off. That never happens, thus you never see 5ghz. At least AMD's TDP means something, and the boost clock doesn't require AVX to not be used. I find it a bit bizarre that Intel never reached their boost clocks for years and it wasn't a scandal until AMD came up 25mhz short. I think the only reason for that is the boost clocks you can get with AMD exceed the all core clocks, while with Intel the boost clocks are lower than the all core OC possible, so doesn't bother anyone since you just set the clock speed higher than the boost anyways. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now