We recently reported on the fact that a range of new mainstream Intel desktop processors are coming onto the market without the integrated graphics enabled. This processors, indicated by the ‘F’ designation (not to be confused with Intel’s chips with an integrated fabric, also called ‘F’), have had their specifications released for a short while, except for the price. Intel is now happy to fill that part in.

Intel’s pricing scheme is a little different to AMD. Rather than provide MSRP, or Manufacturer Suggested Retail Pricing, or SEP, Suggested Etailer Pricing, Intel provides ‘tray’ pricing. This value is the company’s list price for OEMs buying literal trays of CPUs, in batches of 1000. We usually write this as ‘1ku’, for one thousand units. OEMs, like Dell or HP or Supermicro, will happily buy thousands of CPUs, often with a single year warranty. This is in stark contrast to the end-user buying a retail unit obviously only wants one processor and often wants a longer (in most cases, the retail box has a three-year warranty).

The on-shelf price of the processor in a retail box, with or without a cooler, is not listed by Intel. The company leaves it up to distributors and then retailers to determine the market value of such a product. This is why the Intel Core i9-9900K, the current flagship of Intel’s 9th Gen Core desktop processor line, has a ‘tray’ price of $488, but actually came to market on Amazon at $582.50, before settling at its current price of $529. This is also why there has been a debate about whether our comparison between the AMD Athlon 200GE ($55 SEP) and the Intel Pentium G5400 ($64/1ku) is suitable, given that only certain regions with an oversupply seem to hit the Intel price point.

With all that being said, here is Intel’s pricing for the new ‘F’ CPUs:

Intel 9th Gen Core CPUs
AnandTech Cores Base
DDR4 TDP Price
i9-9900K 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $488
i9-9900KF 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 5.0 GHz - - 2666 95 W $488
i7-9700K 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz UHD 630 1200 2666 95 W $374
i7-9700KF 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.9 GHz - - 2666 95 W $374
i5-9600K 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz UHD 630 1150 2666 95 W $262
i5-9600KF 6 / 6 3.7 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2666 95 W $262
i5-9400 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz UHD 630 1050 2666 65 W $182
i5-9400F 6 / 6 2.9 GHz 4.1 GHz - - 2666 65 W $182
i3-9350KF 4 / 4 4.0 GHz 4.6 GHz - - 2400 91 W $173
Relevant Intel 8th Gen Core CPUs
i3-8350K 4 / 4 4.0 GHz - UHD 630 1150 2400 91 W $168
i3-8100 4 / 4 3.6 GHz - UHD 630 1100 2400 65 W $117
i3-8100F 4 / 4 3.6 GHz - - - 2400 65 W $117

The only CPU in this list which doesnt have a non-F is the overclockable Core i3-9350KF, showing a 1ku price of $173, which is a few dollars more than the previous generation Core i3-8350K ($168/1ku), and has a turbo frequency. 

Normally when a part of a processor is fused off, usually cores, we expect to see a decrease in the listed price. In this instance, Intel is putting the same tray price on its GPU-free processors to make them also savings-free. Given how tray price is often not connected to the retail price, it will depend on how many processors actually make it to market or to retail (if any end up in retail packaging) to see if they will actually be sold at a lower price than the parts with integrated graphics.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • UltraWide - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    I guess we could have an AMD monopoly? hehe
  • Sahrin - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    No, that would be just as bad. But Intel isn't getting 50%, they're getting 90%.
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Duopolies don't constitute a proper level of "capitalist competition". Cartels are the worst-case scenario. Monopolies are second. Duopolies are third. None of them constitute adequate competition.
  • Zizy - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    Why is cartel worse than monopoly? This makes no sense. Cartel = many companies deciding together to screw everyone while making an illusion they don't. Monopoly = single company deciding to screw everyone while making an illusion they don't. By any normal reasonable position, having a single company with that power is MUCH worse than having many.

    Duopoly is the "minimum energy" state of the capitalism due to anti-monopoly regulations.
  • Gigaplex - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link

    They'd still be relevant even if it was turned around and Intel only had 10% market share.
  • TristanSDX - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Intel confirmed that their graphics is worthless
  • Dodozoid - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Anandtech, please add "upvote" button
  • Dodozoid - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    And "edit" button
    edit: Just to be clear, I think Intel IGP is very capable in what it is meant to do - displaying stuff and transcoding video, their multimedia block is state of art. It can't game though...
  • Irata - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    An edit button would be nice - made too many typos and copy / paste errors in my posts already, so that would save some embarrassment :)
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link

    Agreed. It's time for Intel to remove the GPU from the most performant desktop processors. If you are building a performance desktop ... you are not interested in the Intel GPU.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now