Rumor: Intel eighth-gen CPU prices spill out of Canadian e-tailer

The leak-catchers over at VideoCardz spotted a handful of eighth-generation Intel Core desktop CPUs on the website of Canadian e-tailer PCCanada. The listings have since been removed, but they contained product codes and pricing. We wrote earlier this week about how the box art for the new CPUs seemingly confirmed rumors that core counts would be increasing to six in at least some models in the Core i5 and Core i7 families. That gives us some perspective for these purported prices. Grab the salt shaker and take a look.

CPU Model 7th Gen (CAD) 8th Gen (CAD) % Difference
Core i7-x700K $462.41 $484.44 +4.76%
Core i7-x700 $406.35 $407.73 0.340%
Core i5-x600K $313.95 $338.00 +7.66%
Core i5-x400 $235.87 $237.58 0.725%
Core i3-x350K $241.82 $233.41 -3.48%
Core i3-x100 $149.08 $152.51 +2.30%

The overclockable eighth-generation Core i3-8350K should be actually cheaper than its its seventh-generation equivalent. For impatient gerbils, the $241.82 CAD price tag on that model is equivalent to $185.53 in U.S. Dollars. The $338.00 Canadian asking price for the Core i5-8600K translates to $268.64 in 'Murrican money. Finally, the Core i7-8700K and the $484.44 in Maple syrup's favorite monetary denomination is about the same as $385.16 in American greenbacks.

Should these rumors hold true, it seems that prices for the new CPUs apparently increased a little on most models, but are generally close enough to the previous-generation offerings. However, the increased core count in the new models has the potential to net the largest increase in multi-threaded performance that we have seen from a generational jump for Intel mainstream desktop chips in quite some time.

All this might mean that Intel doesn't want to reduce selling prices but is willing to give customers more silicon for their money. It's hard to argue against the notion that AMD's resurgence as a serious competitor in the x86 chipmaking business might have caused Intel to boost mainstream desktop core counts for the first time since the introduction of the Core 2 Quad all the way back in early 2007.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    Nice box art. Definitely better than the Skylake/Kaby Lake box design. This somehow looks classy, the old one looks a bit too loud and obnoxious.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    OK THAT’S IT!! I’M GOING BACK TO INTEL!!!

    On second thought……..

    • Ummagumma
    • 2 years ago

    Intel Marketing: “We can charge more because we are INTEL.”

    General public: “Is Intel crazy or what?”

      • tacitust
      • 2 years ago

      The “general public” hasn’t the first clue about processor prices. (Hint: Tech Report readership doesn’t count.)

      What Intel really cares about is how much they charge high volume customers, like PC manufacturers and server farms.

      Also, the last thing Intel wants is to get into a price war with AMD, so AMD will have to prove to Intel they can steal substantial market share from them before they start slashing prices.

        • jihadjoe
        • 2 years ago

        The general public probably don’t even know what processor is in their super-thin lapbook gadget, only that it runs Windows or OSX.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        I think the general public doesn’t even care what CPU is inside. All they care about are terms like ‘dual core’, ‘quad core’, ‘memory’, ‘WiFi’, ‘Pentium’, and ‘Geforce’,

    • Sahrin
    • 2 years ago

    So what does Intel do when AMD releases 12 core Ryzen at the end of 2018?

    8 Core?

      • smilingcrow
      • 2 years ago

      For about as high as 80% or more of home users an imaginary 8 core Intel Coffeelake would be more useful than an imaginary 12 core current generation Ryzen.
      By the time we see a 12 Core Ryzen on a single die versus an actual 8 core Intel mainstream desktop chip that may well change.
      For the majority, having an iGPU and/or faster performance for software that doesn’t scale well beyond 8 threads is more useful.
      The real money is the mainstream OEMs and Server not HEDT type workloads.
      Intel would rather concede HEDT and keep a grip on the other two.

      It’s quite frequent for HEDT enthusiasts to not see the bigger picture and realise that they are a small niche.
      The most important enthusiasts who aren’t niche are gamers and that’s a market Intel will want to keep a tight grip on. More money and mind share than HEDT.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        I suspect an 8 core Intel or a 12 core AMD are equally useful for most people. Incidentally that is also as useful as a 4 core chip from either company.

          • smilingcrow
          • 2 years ago

          With Intel having an IGP and better gaming and single/double core performance that’s why I say the Intel makes more sense to the majority.
          But you are right that those extra 4 or 8 cores make zero difference to the majority also.

      • Mr Bill
      • 2 years ago

      Its tricky, Intel probably does not want game developers to actually start using more cores.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        They don’t want to help AMD, but they need some way to justify their high margins. Stagnation cannot go on forever without the product becoming low margin.

    • Kougar
    • 2 years ago

    Those core counts be Ryzen

    • tipoo
    • 2 years ago

    Now you can all see what makes our frozen tears fall

    • Unknown-Error
    • 2 years ago

    What is AMD’s response? Some price cuts I assume. I don’t think there is any Ryzen refresh (hypothetical 1620X, 1650X, etc) anytime soon (maybe mid-2018?). Raven-Ridge for this year is mobile only.

      • Klimax
      • 2 years ago

      Which would be bad news for AMD.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      AMD is preparing Ryzen 2.0 as we speak. As an AMD PowerPoint slide has said, “We’re just getting started.”

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        Easier said than done.

        • tipoo
        • 2 years ago

        They’re in for a battle. Close-enough cores plus twice the cores of Intel was an easy proposition, with Intel doubling down on cores it will have to be seen if Ryzen has enough low hanging fruit left to get competitive on a pure architecture basis, and how they’ll upsell Intel without a core advantage.

        Or, it could be that they’ll keep one upping each other on cores for a while…But there are obvious limits to that.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 2 years ago

          Its hard for AMD to beat Intel, but its also hard for Intel to push AMD back into irrelevance. The “good enough” Zen core is going to stick around and do just about anything that anyone could ask of it. This contest might be fought by the sales departments cutting deals more than actual differences in product.

            • tipoo
            • 2 years ago

            That’s true, they’re going to stick closer than they ever could for the last near decade at least. But the more “good enough” cores was definitely the ace up their sleeve with the Ryzen launch.

            Hopefully we’re in for a good old fashioned duke out.

            • anubis44
            • 2 years ago

            I just read an article saying that, in order for Intel to successfully win a price war against AMD in the server space, it would cost them 50% of their margins. There’s no way in hell Intel will sacrifice 50% of their margins. They’d have to cut their dividend and the stock would plunge like a stone from ~$35/share to about $17.50/share, and they’d be lucky if it stopped there. Some people don’t seem to understand the competitive position AMD has just put Intel into. AMD has them in a headlock, and Intel is starting to run out of air.

        • Unknown-Error
        • 2 years ago

        Zen 2.0 is based on GF 7nm process. So IF, I REPEAT IF GF doesn’t screw up you’ll be getting zen v2 based products late 2018. IPC increase from v2 onwards will be 10% or so. Dont forget about clock speed. Coffee-Lake will boost to 4.7Ghz. Zen barely gets past 4.0Ghz.

        Raven-Ridge for desktop should be released 1H next year while for Mobile it will be 2H this year. The problem here is AMD’s GPU advatange completely gone thanks to Iris-pro when it comes to APUs.

        So everything comes down to pricing. Ryzen 5 is very well priced but I am not sure about the rest. Must see how the 16C/32T 1950X fares against the 12C/24T 7920X since the latter is only a bit more expensive.

          • tipoo
          • 2 years ago

          I hate having to bet things on GF not screwing up :/

    • NTMBK
    • 2 years ago

    The i3 doubles core count, while dropping the price at the same time? [i<]Nice.[/i<]

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      Huh, yeah. An i3 gaming rig might be all 80% of people need with a native quad. More than ever, the HT duals were pretty good already.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 2 years ago

        Probably they won’t let a quad i3 turbo though, and that would be a bit disappointing. I’m not expecting them to match the fairly impressive clocks they offered on dual i3s.

          • tipoo
          • 2 years ago

          I guess it’ll be more Ryzen like. Trade a bit of ST performance to get some more MT performance.

          Ach, I had a Kaby Lake build all specced out, I wanna know a launch date. I’m guessing it’ll probably have some good overclocking headroom to get back that ST.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 2 years ago

            I think Intel will have an easy time making i5 and i7 more attractive than a quad i3, in fact I would perhaps rather have a dual i3 at highest possible clock, than some quad stuck in the very bottom of the 3ghz range. At least a hexacore i5 should be expected to turbo, even if the base clock is poor. Or a quad i5 would offer both turbo and HT.

            Will there be any room for quad i7 on desktop? Hmm, rambling questions.

          • smilingcrow
          • 2 years ago

          Isn’t the speculation that the vanilla i3 range goes as high as 4GHz but no Turbo?
          Beyond that you’d want the i3 K chip.
          The i5 6 core non turbo sounds interesting as it allegedly tops out at 4GHz for single core.
          If motherboards still allow non K chips to run all cores at the top single core speed that’s a decent lick for an Intel 6 core for that price.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 2 years ago

            I read my speculations right here on TR so you’ll have to tell me what other people say. 🙂

            I’d be surprised if they went as high as 4ghz on 4 cores for i3, sounds like they leave too little room for i5 and i7.

            • smilingcrow
            • 2 years ago

            Well the new i5 has 50% more cores than the i3 which is a bigger gain than the current generation where the jump is i3 2c/4t to i5 4c/4t so not seeing the issue?
            On top of that the current i3 as you mentioned have high clock speeds which narrows the gap even further.

            The i3 K has a reported base of 4GHz and the non K are lower but that’s just the starting line-up. 3.6GHz is a step backwards versus the current 4.1 for non K chips so even with extra cores that takes the shine off unless IPC finally does increase by 5% or so are rumoured.
            So there’s a big gulf between the new i3 and i5. The jump to the i7 is the small one IMO.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 2 years ago

            Maybe an i3-K can justify 4ghz, those are also a little higher end.

            Is that right that the whole desktop i5 range is going 6 cores? Its going to get pretty crowded at the high performance end of the spectrum I think. I wonder if AMD’s sudden revival would cause Intel to flex muscle like that.

            • smilingcrow
            • 2 years ago

            All the reports I’ve seen show all the i5s as 6 core.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 2 years ago

    Mmmmmm….maple syrup goodness…

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    We’re nearly at the six-month mark since Ryzen’s release. AMD dropped a load of Zen info about a year before that. So now 18 months on, there’s a chance some of this reconfiguration stuff is the fruits of planning for Zen. Maybe. Possibly.

    [quote<] All this might mean that Intel doesn't want to reduce selling prices but is willing to give customers more silicon for their money.[/quote<] Intel has been price-cut-adverse for many moons now, so this is the only response possible for them.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Selling unlocked quad-core i3s at the same price as existing dual-core i3s is effectively a price cut.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        You could spin it that way. You could have spun the i7-7700K as a “price cut” since it was clocked faster than the 6700K before it, too. But in Intel’s product line, a quad-core Core i3 is still just an “8th-generation Core i3”.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Actually the 7700K’s MSRP of $339 [b<]is[/b<] a price cut from the $350 of the 6700K. If these pre-release prices are to be believed, the new quad-core i3 is also somewhat less expensive in absolute terms than its dual-core predecessor too.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            Point being you can always spin “more stuff for (approximately) the same money” as a “price cut”.

          • blastdoor
          • 2 years ago

          Yup… the price/transistor has been falling for a long time, so one could argue that Intel has almost always cut prices. And if someone’s objective is to fit the facts to fit the firmly held belief that Intel is awesome, then that’s the argument to make.

          But if we are trying to discern whether competition from AMD has had an effect on Intel, a better place to look is Intel’s gross margins.

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            What about AMD’s MASSIVE PRICE INCREASE with Ryzen!?!?1/!?!?!

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Incidentally, Apple has good news for you: They have figured out that they should put brakes on their self-driving cars. At least that’s what the title of the story says! #ThanksForInventingBrakesApple

            [url<]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/23/apple-puts-brakes-on-self-driving-car-waymo[/url<]

            • blastdoor
            • 2 years ago

            I wonder if anybody will ever be able to make any money out of self-driving cars. It seems that the automakers are jumping on autonomy the way unix workstation vendors were jumping on Itanium in the late 90s.

            • NovusBogus
            • 2 years ago

            The guys selling self-driving car startups to big dumb companies are gonna make loads of money. Everyone else, not so much.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 2 years ago

            You’re misreading that: it means that Apple will install the brakes *themselves* instead of farming it off to an OEM.

            • deathBOB
            • 2 years ago

            “But if we are trying to discern whether competition from AMD has had an effect on Intel, a better place to look is Intel’s gross margins.”

            ^ This so much.

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        Core i3 8350K @ $240 is more than I paid for my i5 4670K 4 years ago. Also, intel’s price lists are what they charge for 1,000-lot orders, so I’d expect street prices on the 8- series to be slightly above these.

        Ryzen 5 1600/1600X is selling for ~$215/$240 and gives you 50% moar coars, that’s a whole lotta core for an IPC advantage to make up for.

        EDIT: +50% moar core and +200% extra thread.

          • chuckula
          • 2 years ago

          Uh… at launch the 4670K was $242 [b<]AMERICAN[/b<] and the 8350K assuming a direct currency translation is $185.96. Doesn't sound more expensive to me unless you got some massive discount below MSRP on your 4670K.

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            Street prices for the 4670K were about $220 when I was looking, and I got mine for about $209. My bad, I didn’t realize that the prices listed in the article above were CAD.

            But still, if anyone was looking to build a midrange gaming/general purpose system with ~$200 budget for the CPU today, I’d be pointing them at the Ryzen 5 1600, and the new unlocked core i3 wouldn’t change my recommendation.

            I’m expecting Raven Ridge to make the lower end intel 8th gens even less attractive, but we’ll have to see how well AMD delivers.

            • smilingcrow
            • 2 years ago

            Street prices are not the same as official price lists so not a great comparison to make.

            • homerdog
            • 2 years ago

            Why the hell would anyone downvote this comment?

            • chuckula
            • 2 years ago

            Anything that isn’t politically correct gets attacked around here, especially if the post contains completely logical and fully verifiable factual information.

            • YellaChicken
            • 2 years ago

            It’s chuckula. It doesn’t matter whether he’s shilling for the blue team or making a factually correct post. The rule is as follows:

            IF comment = witty THEN upvote
            ELSE downvote

            Hope that helps 😉

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      Not a huge surprise. Even if the 8700K has the same IPC as the 7700K, Intel will still have the best per-thread performance on the block, and will be offering 50% more threads than their previous generation.

      TBH, I’m glad they didn’t *increase* the prices by 50%. (It’s Intel — I’m sure they at least discussed doing that….)

        • Klimax
        • 2 years ago

        Don’t think so. It would be price-wise getting into HEDT segment and there are different chips for that.

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      When you have ~80% marketshare you really really don’t want to cut prices.

      A 10% across-the-board price cut will hurt Intel way more than losing another 1-2% to AMD.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Considering those are pre-release prices that are typically inflated from MSRP it looks like Intel is maintaining pretty steady pricing in this market segment.

    Incidentally, I thought these Coffee Lake parts weren’t launching until October. It’s awfully early for regular retailers to be listing prices.

      • Voldenuit
      • 2 years ago

      Also, aren’t we seeing a mix of Kaby and Coffee in this “8th generation” lineup?

      It’ll be like the Geforce 940 MX all over again.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        The “Kaby Lake Refresh” parts appear to be all in mobile and they are generally doubling the core counts compared to their predecessors so I wouldn’t call it a “940 MX” since those parts weren’t doubling the size of the GPU.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 2 years ago

      Not sure why downvoted for this one. Others maybe, not this.

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    Core “Oh sh!* AMD released Ryzen” Edition.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This