Save Zero Dollars by Opting for Intel's iGPU-Disabled CPUs

[Megalith]

Intel’s new Coffee Lake F-series CPUs lack integrated graphics, so they should be cheaper, right? Wrong; they are priced the same as their predecessors, which sported Intel UHD Graphics 630 iGPUs. The Core i9-9900KF, for instance, is going for $488, just like the Core i9-9900K. While F-series processors could ultimately be priced cheaper by retailers, Intel’s RCP (Recommended Customer Pricing) list has been made clear.

It stands to reason that customers with discrete graphics cards won't need the integrated graphics during normal use, but they do come in handy in the case of a GPU failure or if you retire an older chip to a system that doesn't have a discrete graphics card. There's obviously a very large market for CPUs without integrated graphics, as evidenced by the success of AMD's mainstream Ryzen lineup, but we typically expect a pricing offset that reflects the lack of graphics capability.

 

[Master_shake_]

I'm so shocked.

Intel igpu isn't worth a fist full of fuck all besides testing for a bad GPU as far as I can see.

It should be free and it looks like it is.

 

[kirbyrj]

Well, if there's no price difference, why not opt for the IGP enabled CPU? I can't imagine there's that much difference (if any).

 

[Space_Ranger]

Well, if there's no price difference, why not opt for the IGP enabled CPU? I can't imagine there's that much difference (if any).

Only thing I can think of is more headroom for overclocking since you don't have to worry about the IGP getting in the way.

 

[Revdarian]

Only thing I can think of is more headroom for overclocking since you don't have to worry about the IGP getting in the way.

Only in the weird case that you overclock while using the igp instead of using a discrete gpu.

If you are using a discrete gpu then there will be no difference as the physical components will be exactly the same, cpu cores sitting next to the un powered gpu cores.

 

[FrozenSteel]

The way it was put to me was that the dark silicon (disabled IGP) allows for greater heat dissipation and higher overclocks. Therefore, these processors are marketed for the gamer who expects to use dedicated graphics and overclocks (These processors will usually have a higher overclock potential.)

 

[viper1152012]

I'm glad someone did some testing to prove the disabled gpu of the F series allows dor more overclocking than the disabled gpu on the K series, because we know that dang gpu eats so many watts and generates half the TDP....

Get real.... Thus is just an empty promis floating on social media gossip so they can sell bad bin gpu chips......

 

[Brian_B]

But hey the IGP is getting a new control panel right?

 

[clockdogg]

But who can put a price on dark silicon?

Intel.

 

[KazeoHin]

The way it was put to me was that the dark silicon (disabled IGP) allows for greater heat dissipation and higher overclocks. Therefore, these processors are marketed for the gamer who expects to use dedicated graphics and overclocks (These processors will usually have a higher overclock potential.)

Not noticeably much. Silicon is actually a pretty good insulator.

 

[BloodyIron]

BTW intel iGPUs are pretty good for rendering offloading. Pretty stupid situation, but there is legit uses for it.

 

[jpcahn1]

You've got six months left to pull this crap Intel. By the time the Ryzen 3000s come out people will be running to buy them and stick it to you at the same time. I have an 8700K but it is my last Intel chip.

 

[SixFootDuo]

If you want a humburger, get AMD, if you want steak, get Intel. Hamburgers are on the value menu, steak is not.

Also, who buys a 9900K and uses the on-chip GPU? I'm guessing that number is very very few.

A lot of people do not like the multi-chip design of AMD due to the interconnect speeds and other associated latencies. Maybe Ryzen 3 or whatever it will be called can change that perception.

As long as Intel is the fastest I'm sure they are going to have the the more expensive parts.

What a lot of people do not understand is that when you spend a lot of money on expensive parts, for example, a Samsung 970 Pro ... or a $1300 video card, those higher end enthusiasts do not mind spending the extra cash on the more expensive Intel parts. Me personally, could never imagine spending $1300 on a RTX 2080 Ti and paring it with a AMD 2700x.

I see a lot of Intel bashing but I also see a lot of missing logic. So, I can't really blame them. They don't know any better.

 

[bigdogchris]

When my GPU died I was happy to have an iGPU because it got me by for a couple weeks. I always sell my old hardware to help recoup cost so I don't keep parts laying around.

 

[kirbyrj]

If you want a humburger, get AMD, if you want steak, get Intel. Hamburgers are on the value menu, steak is not.

Also, who buys a 9900K and uses the on-chip GPU? I'm guessing that number is very very few.

A lot of people do not like the multi-chip design of AMD due to the interconnect speeds and other associated latencies. Maybe Ryzen 3 or whatever it will be called can change that perception.

As long as Intel is the fastest I'm sure they are going to have the the more expensive parts.

What a lot of people do not understand is that when you spend a lot of money on expensive parts, for example, a Samsung 970 Pro ... or a $1300 video card, those higher end enthusiasts do not mind spending the extra cash on the more expensive Intel parts. Me personally, could never imagine spending $1300 on a RTX 2080 Ti and paring it with a AMD 2700x.

I see a lot of Intel bashing but I also see a lot of missing logic. So, I can't really blame them. They don't know any better.

Missing logic? You are paying the same and getting less. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[[Spectre]]

If you want a humburger, get AMD, if you want steak, get Intel. Hamburgers are on the value menu, steak is not.

Also, who buys a 9900K and uses the on-chip GPU? I'm guessing that number is very very few.

A lot of people do not like the multi-chip design of AMD due to the interconnect speeds and other associated latencies. Maybe Ryzen 3 or whatever it will be called can change that perception.

As long as Intel is the fastest I'm sure they are going to have the the more expensive parts.

What a lot of people do not understand is that when you spend a lot of money on expensive parts, for example, a Samsung 970 Pro ... or a $1300 video card, those higher end enthusiasts do not mind spending the extra cash on the more expensive Intel parts. Me personally, could never imagine spending $1300 on a RTX 2080 Ti and paring it with a AMD 2700x.

I see a lot of Intel bashing but I also see a lot of missing logic. So, I can't really blame them. They don't know any better.

By a lot you mean which "a lot"?

 

[FrgMstr]

Missing logic? You are paying the same and getting less. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Then don't buy it?? Intel K series CPUs have been the best for gamers for a while now, and now we are going to gripe about a feature missing that we never used. Then play the same and get the iGPU?

 

[Hakaba]

I wonder how much this is going to help temps and or max overclock.

 

[FrgMstr]

I wonder how much this is going to help temps and or max overclock.

I would suggest basically nothing.

 

[SixFootDuo]

I'm honestly sick and tired of paying crazy prices. I hope AMD comes to the rescue. I really think they will. I would die laughing if I could get 10 - 12 core or more for $350 or $400 ... that would be amazing.

 

[FrgMstr]

I'm honestly sick and tired of paying crazy prices. I hope AMD comes to the rescue. I really think they will. I would die laughing if I could get 10 - 12 core or more for $350 or $400 ... that would be amazing.

Too bad you have not had the opportunity to buy one yet.

 

[seanreisk]

I've only read a few short pieces on these new 'F' series CPUs, can anyone tell me if there has been a solid assumption that these might be CPUs with a dead graphics chip?

Pricing them the same makes some sense if there is a disabled iGPU. If the 'F' series were modestly cheaper it would cut into the sales of the standard chips and create demand for the 'F' series. Pricing them the same means people will compare the two, decide they might as well have the iGPU if it costs nothing, and then its up to the retailer to decide if they want to overprice the standard CPU or underprice the 'F' series to keep stocks level.

 

[Revdarian]

I've only read a few short pieces on these new 'F' series CPUs, can anyone tell me if there has been a solid assumption that these might be CPUs with a dead graphics chip?

Pricing them the same makes some sense if there is a disabled iGPU. If the 'F' series were modestly cheaper it would cut into the sales of the standard chips and create demand for the 'F' series. Pricing them the same means people will compare the two, decide they might as well have the iGPU if it costs nothing, and then its up to the retailer to decide if they want to overprice the standard CPU or underprice the 'F' series to keep stocks level.

It was pretty much confirmed on anandtech's article about the chips. They are exactly the same as the others just with dead /lasered off igpus.

 

[Galvin]

Smart people will wait for next gen from amd and intel this summer
Unless you got money to burn now and upgrade in 6 months as well

 

[SixFootDuo]

By a lot you mean which "a lot"?

Words games? Really? lol ... ok... I'll bite.

The "a lot" I am referring to are the people that want the absolute best performance and are willing to pay for it.

If you're on a budget then this clearly will not make sense to you. I understand that. What I want others to understand is, AMD is not associated with high-end performance. I'm not saying AMD is trash. They are a great product and we, as a whole are very lucky to have them. If I were on a budget, trust me, I would be damn glad I had AMD to turn to. And who knows, that may change in the future. I would very much like to stop paying high prices for Intel. Look, I'm not "brand" oriented. I'm just not. I think that's dumb and I don't do that. But I am very "performance" oriented and so are "a lot" of people.

You don't go and buy Ferrari and take it to a gas station and put regular octane gas in it. You put high octane in it. That's all I'm saying. Or, you don't go to a Mexican Restaurant and order a hamburger.

There are is a lot of passive aggressive Intel bashing going on here on HardOCP. I very rarely see positive Intel reviews, articles, editorials anymore. Sure Intel is more expensive but you're still getting the best of the best performance.

For the record, I hate, really hate some of Intel's tactics. I understand the backlash, but to a degree.

Another "a lot" that I see is a lot of ass kissing on threads against Intel. Trust me, Kyle is still gonna be cool with some of ya'll if you voice your "own" opinion on the matter. In a polite way of course.

 

[griff30]

BTW intel iGPUs are pretty good for rendering offloading. Pretty stupid situation, but there is legit uses for it.

It's also good at Plex hardware acceleration but not much else.
Plex is going to the way side.

 

[[Spectre]]

Words games? Really? lol ... ok... I'll bite.

The "a lot" I am referring to are the people that want the absolute best performance and are willing to pay for it.

If you're on a budget then this clearly will not make sense to you. I understand that. What I want others to understand is, AMD is not associated with high-end performance. I'm not saying AMD is trash. They are a great product and we, as a whole are very lucky to have them. If I were on a budget, trust me, I would be damn glad I had AMD to turn to. And who knows, that may change in the future. I would very much like to stop paying high prices for Intel. Look, I'm not "brand" oriented. I'm just not. I think that's dumb and I don't do that. But I am very "performance" oriented and so are "a lot" of people.

You don't go and buy Ferrari and take it to a gas station and put regular octane gas in it. You put high octane in it. That's all I'm saying. Or, you don't go to a Mexican Restaurant and order a hamburger.

There are is a lot of passive aggressive Intel bashing going on here on HardOCP. I very rarely see positive Intel reviews, articles, editorials anymore. Sure Intel is more expensive but you're still getting the best of the best performance.

For the record, I hate, really hate some of Intel's tactics. I understand the backlash, but to a degree.

Another "a lot" that I see is a lot of ass kissing on threads against Intel. Trust me, Kyle is still gonna be cool with some of ya'll if you voice your "own" opinion on the matter. In a polite way of course.

That doesn't answer who the "a lot" are that don't like the multichip design. Who is this a lot?

 

[Chimpee]

That is really odd pricing if this is true, having a gimp product costing the same as the non gimp version.

 

[funkydmunky]

(These processors will usually have a higher overclock potential.)

Do you mean HARD Over Clock Potential?

 

[Qthulu]

Words games? Really? lol ... ok... I'll bite.

The "a lot" I am referring to are the people that want the absolute best performance and are willing to pay for it.

If you're on a budget then this clearly will not make sense to you. I understand that. What I want others to understand is, AMD is not associated with high-end performance. I'm not saying AMD is trash. They are a great product and we, as a whole are very lucky to have them. If I were on a budget, trust me, I would be damn glad I had AMD to turn to. And who knows, that may change in the future. I would very much like to stop paying high prices for Intel. Look, I'm not "brand" oriented. I'm just not. I think that's dumb and I don't do that. But I am very "performance" oriented and so are "a lot" of people.

You don't go and buy Ferrari and take it to a gas station and put regular octane gas in it. You put high octane in it. That's all I'm saying. Or, you don't go to a Mexican Restaurant and order a hamburger.

There are is a lot of passive aggressive Intel bashing going on here on HardOCP. I very rarely see positive Intel reviews, articles, editorials anymore. Sure Intel is more expensive but you're still getting the best of the best performance.

For the record, I hate, really hate some of Intel's tactics. I understand the backlash, but to a degree.

Another "a lot" that I see is a lot of ass kissing on threads against Intel. Trust me, Kyle is still gonna be cool with some of ya'll if you voice your "own" opinion on the matter. In a polite way of course.

Well I don't see a lot of positive Intel news here or anywhere. There is a reason for it.

 

[SixFootDuo]

That doesn't answer who the "a lot" are that don't like the multichip design. Who is this a lot?

Just because it's not spelled out for you doesn't mean people are not aware. I understand a lot of kids don't even know or understand the multi-chip design and the associated latencies, but "a lot" of people do. If you're asking me to give you names, or numbers, I can't. Just like you can't give me a lot of "specific" information I might ask for. So if you want to continue playing word games, we canm but that really doesn't sound fun to me.

The people that buy Intel, especially the higher end chips are fully aware of AMD's multi-chip design. Intel even called them out. This is what brought my attention to the issue last year or the year before. And this might be shocking to you, but "a lot" of other people read that article along with reactionary follow up articles from various web sites across the web in the following weeks and months. So those are the "a lot" I'm referring to .... I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or where you're wanting to take this but there isn't really "a lot" you can do to change those facts. However, I guess it's on you if you want to continue to blur and dance around this. I suggest you just live with it. You're beating around the bush and playing games here. Also, the audience here is "a lot" more savvy than you want to give them credit for. You should be mindful of that.

Trying to force my hand at specifics .. or it isn't true ... seems underhanded.

 

[Shadowed]

I see my iGPU as the spare tire under the trunk. Hopefully it never has to be used.... Still nice to have.

 

[Calavaro]

Just because it's not spelled out for you doesn't mean people are not aware. I understand a lot of kids don't even know or understand the multi-chip design and the associated latencies, but "a lot" of people do. If you're asking me to give you names, or numbers, I can't. Just like you can't give me a lot of "specific" information I might ask for. So if you want to continue playing word games, we canm but that really doesn't sound fun to me.

The people that buy Intel, especially the higher end chips are fully aware of AMD's multi-chip design. Intel even called them out. This is what brought my attention to the issue last year or the year before. And this might be shocking to you, but "a lot" of other people read that article along with reactionary follow up articles from various web sites across the web in the following weeks and months. So those are the "a lot" I'm referring to .... I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or where you're wanting to take this but there isn't really "a lot" you can do to change those facts. However, I guess it's on you if you want to continue to blur and dance around this. I suggest you just live with it. You're beating around the bush and playing games here. Also, the audience here is "a lot" more savvy than you want to give them credit for. You should be mindful of that.

Trying to force my hand at specifics .. or it isn't true ... seems underhanded.

You do say an awful lot without saying anything.
Fact is (from what we have all seen) that a mid-range Ryzen 3000 series CPU is as fast (or faster) than the 9900k from Intel, at a (probably) far cheaper price, and much lower power consumption. Bright future for AMD, not so much for Intel. Monolithic cores are pretty much dead in the water right now, and chiplet approach seems to be the way forward if you want many cores and plenty of speed, at low power consumption.
Is the k-series Intel CPU a smidgen faster in 1 single use case of a CPU? Sure. Does that justify a doubling or tripling in price? Market (the "a lot") says no.

In my usecase scenario an AMD is better. I play games, but I also want my machine to stream, encode and share that, all at the same time. An Intel CPU doesn't do that as well as an AMD CPU. specially at the prices I'm ready to pay. There is a reason why I didn't buy much HW the past 10 years... there was no forward movement. Now there is, and I want my 16 core 3850x (or whatever it'll be called) at the US$500 expected price point.

Right now Intel doesn't have a fab to stand on to compete... Will they in the future? I don't know, but even if they do,they would have to up with a CPU that exceeds 16 cores and goes below 500 dollars. Tough.

 

[misterbobby]

My iGPU is disabled in the BIOS anyway. I have a cheap old backup Nvidia card if I'm ever in between higher end GPUs.

 

[tangoseal]

I'd rather get the igp if anything for the video conversion capability.

 

[Mega6]

igpu Not very [H] on a desktop.

 

[Meeho]

If you want a humburger, get AMD, if you want steak, get Intel. Hamburgers are on the value menu, steak is not.

Also, who buys a 9900K and uses the on-chip GPU? I'm guessing that number is very very few.

A lot of people do not like the multi-chip design of AMD due to the interconnect speeds and other associated latencies. Maybe Ryzen 3 or whatever it will be called can change that perception.

As long as Intel is the fastest I'm sure they are going to have the the more expensive parts.

What a lot of people do not understand is that when you spend a lot of money on expensive parts, for example, a Samsung 970 Pro ... or a $1300 video card, those higher end enthusiasts do not mind spending the extra cash on the more expensive Intel parts. Me personally, could never imagine spending $1300 on a RTX 2080 Ti and paring it with a AMD 2700x.

I see a lot of Intel bashing but I also see a lot of missing logic. So, I can't really blame them. They don't know any better.

Words games? Really? lol ... ok... I'll bite.

The "a lot" I am referring to are the people that want the absolute best performance and are willing to pay for it.

If you're on a budget then this clearly will not make sense to you. I understand that. What I want others to understand is, AMD is not associated with high-end performance. I'm not saying AMD is trash. They are a great product and we, as a whole are very lucky to have them. If I were on a budget, trust me, I would be damn glad I had AMD to turn to. And who knows, that may change in the future. I would very much like to stop paying high prices for Intel. Look, I'm not "brand" oriented. I'm just not. I think that's dumb and I don't do that. But I am very "performance" oriented and so are "a lot" of people.

You don't go and buy Ferrari and take it to a gas station and put regular octane gas in it. You put high octane in it. That's all I'm saying. Or, you don't go to a Mexican Restaurant and order a hamburger.

There are is a lot of passive aggressive Intel bashing going on here on HardOCP. I very rarely see positive Intel reviews, articles, editorials anymore. Sure Intel is more expensive but you're still getting the best of the best performance.

For the record, I hate, really hate some of Intel's tactics. I understand the backlash, but to a degree.

Another "a lot" that I see is a lot of ass kissing on threads against Intel. Trust me, Kyle is still gonna be cool with some of ya'll if you voice your "own" opinion on the matter. In a polite way of course.

Just because it's not spelled out for you doesn't mean people are not aware. I understand a lot of kids don't even know or understand the multi-chip design and the associated latencies, but "a lot" of people do. If you're asking me to give you names, or numbers, I can't. Just like you can't give me a lot of "specific" information I might ask for. So if you want to continue playing word games, we canm but that really doesn't sound fun to me.

The people that buy Intel, especially the higher end chips are fully aware of AMD's multi-chip design. Intel even called them out. This is what brought my attention to the issue last year or the year before. And this might be shocking to you, but "a lot" of other people read that article along with reactionary follow up articles from various web sites across the web in the following weeks and months. So those are the "a lot" I'm referring to .... I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or where you're wanting to take this but there isn't really "a lot" you can do to change those facts. However, I guess it's on you if you want to continue to blur and dance around this. I suggest you just live with it. You're beating around the bush and playing games here. Also, the audience here is "a lot" more savvy than you want to give them credit for. You should be mindful of that.

Trying to force my hand at specifics .. or it isn't true ... seems underhanded.

Rarely has one written so much and said so little.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I'm so shocked.

Intel igpu isn't worth a fist full of fuck all besides testing for a bad GPU as far as I can see.

It should be free and it looks like it is.

It's also useful for using Nvidia's mining-only GPUs with no display out ports as regular display GPUs.

 

[kirbyrj]

My iGPU is disabled in the BIOS anyway. I have a cheap old backup Nvidia card if I'm ever in between higher end GPUs.

But why? You have one built into your CPU. I mean I have an old 5450 with multiple video outputs that I keep around also but I only use it when there is no igp.

 

[mnewxcv]

Quicksync is finally mature and an adopted technology.ao igpu has its place. If you are encoding frequently or streaming quick sync is a huge asset. Beyond that though, I would've priced the non igpu models $10 cheaper just to sell them.