Skip to main content

Intel 9th Gen Coffee Lake CPU Pricing Plummets

Intel Core i9-9900K

Intel Core i9-9900K (Image credit: Amazon)

Intel's Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K processors are at record lows right now. With the price cuts, the introduction of Comet Lake-S and the consistent pressure from AMD's Zen 2 chips, Intel's Coffee Lake chips have been just going downhill.

In August, Intel had issued price reductions up to 25% on some of its most popular 9th Generation models. For this occasion, however, it might just be retailers trying to rid themselves of the remaining Coffee Lake processors. As per CamelCamelCamel's data, the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K have dropped to $359.99 and $289.99, respectively.

Even at $359.99, the Core i9-9900K isn't that great of a bargain. The Core i7-10700K is faster than the Core i9-9900K in both general and gaming performance and only costs $20 more. The Core i9-9900K, on the other hand, is on the dying LGA1151 platform. The only reason that we can see for someone to pick up a Core i9-9900K is if the person already owns a LGA1151 motherboard and wants to upgrade from a slower processor, say like a Core i3. If you're starting from scratch, it's just a better decision to roll with the Core i7-10700K and LGA1200 platform, which is ready for PCIe 4.0 when Rocket Lake drops.

Image 1 of 2

Intel Core i9-9900K

Intel Core i9-9900K (Image credit: CamelCamelCamel)
Image 2 of 2

Intel Core i7-9700K

Intel Core i7-9700K (Image credit: Core i9-9900K)

The Core i5-10600K is on par with the Core i7-9700K when it comes to gaming performance, However, the Core i7-9700K is still a bit ahead of the Core i5-10600K for single-and multi-thread workloads. 

A few months ago when the Core i7-9700K costed $339.99 and the Core i5-10600K went for $262, the latter would have been the easy pick. However, the Core i7-9700K now sells for $289.99, and the Core i5-10600K retails for around $280 when there's no promotion. 

Once again, the Core i7-9700K should be a good option for existing LGA1151 owners that want a decent processor without having to shell out money for another motherboard. If you're putting together a system for the first time, you'd be better served with Comet Lake or AMD's Zen 2 offerings. However, if time isn't of the essence, it's even better to wait for Zen 3, which AMD will announce on October 8.

  • EridanusSV
    If the leaks are true with the Zen3.. Intel should do the world a favor and give their chips out for free.
    Reply
  • Gurg
    The price of a 9600K at Microcenter has been $169.99 for at least a month. When paired with a 2080ti the 9600K at 5.0 OC beats every AMD CPU in TH gaming suite according to your reviews.

    AMD 3600x is $199.88
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Gurg said:
    The price of a 9600K at Microcenter has been $169.99 for at least a month. When paired with a 2080ti the 9600K at 5.0 OC beats every AMD CPU in TH gaming suite according to your reviews.

    AMD 3600x is $199.88

    Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.
    Reply
  • Bobby Max
    Do you really want 14nm before its super ++ improvement?
    Reply
  • Shadowclash10
    Bobby Max said:
    Do you really want 14nm before its super ++ improvement?
    ??? Don't you mean +++?

    I find it amusing that even after all these discounts these chips are still not great value.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    logainofhades said:
    Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.
    If you're exclusively a gamer, there is no reason to pick any AMD CPU over even a 9600k, let alone anything higher.

    3900X is bottlenecking so badly that a 9900K with a 5700XT beats the 3900X with a 2080Ti at 1080p. 9600k is 15% faster than 3900x. AMD may be able to eek out a win here or there, but if the margin is large, it is always an Intel CPU in front.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    What part of running a 2080ti at the proper resolution, for such a card did you not get? A 2080ti should not be run at anything below 1440p, period. The CPU becomes a bottleneck, even with Intel, at 1080p, with a 2080ti. MS flight sim is a horribly optimized title, that is not well threaded, as well. There is a reason why the 3600 was so popular and the 9600k was not. The 9600k doesn't do well in titles that are highly threaded, in comparison.

    7AbNeht4tAE:1623View: https://youtu.be/7AbNeht4tAE?t=1623
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    logainofhades said:
    What part of running a 2080ti at the proper resolution, for such a card did you not get? A 2080ti should not be run at anything below 1440p, period. The CPU becomes a bottleneck, even with Intel, at 1080p, with a 2080ti. MS flight sim is a horribly optimized title, that is not well threaded, as well.
    Cars 3 at 1440P

    Why would you recommend a 3900x, when it is losing by about 10% to a 9600k that cost half as much? You can sit in denial all you want, the benchmarks don't lie. If your primary focus is gaming, don't buy AMD. That may change this month, but as of now, Intel is the choice.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    EridanusSV said:
    If the leaks are true with the Zen3.. Intel should do the world a favor and give their chips out for free.
    If intel would do that AMD would not be able to sell one single chip and it would be back to debt for AMD.
    But in all seriousness AMD can only produce such a limited number of CPUs that intel can keep asking whatever they want for their CPUs.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    spongiemaster said:
    Cars 3 at 1440P
    Why would you recommend a 3900x, when it is losing by about 10% to a 9600k that cost half as much? You can sit in denial all you want, the benchmarks don't lie. If your primary focus is gaming, don't buy AMD. That may change this month, but as of now, Intel is the choice.

    I never recommended a 3900x. I said 3600. Also see my edit above. It is a better all around CPU, with more consistent performance, vs a 9600k. The 9600k can have frametime variance issues, the 3600 does not experience. That is why the 10600k is such a great CPU. Intel finally added HT to their 6c cpu.

    Project Cars doesn't need more than 6c/6t, which is pretty obvious, when looking at the 9600k, vs the 9900k. Given how well the 9100 performed vs the faster clocked 9600k, and 9900k, that also have more cache, it probably doesn't need more than 4c.

    As far as pecking order, for newer titles, that need more than 6c/6t it is 9600k --> 3600 --> 10600k. Hands down, the 10600k is the best gaming only CPU, for the $$ right now. The 9600k is a great E-Sports/lightly threaded gaming chip, but in newer core/thread heavier titles, it falls behind, on what really matters, which is the .1% / 1% lows that can cause stuttering, if they dip too low. The 9600k is not a terrible chip, but like any CPU, it has its strengths and weaknesses.
    Reply