Dutch Amazon is listing the 12900K, 12700K, and 12600K

mongeese

Posts: 531   +111
Staff member
In a nutshell: Dutch Amazon has become the latest retailer to list part of the Alder Lake series ahead of their launch. Although the listing doesn’t purport to be selling the CPUs, unlike some questionable Chinese listings, it confirms prior information about packaging and includes new pricing information.

By now, you’re probably familiar with Alder Lake, Intel’s upcoming 12th-gen Core processors. Their specifications have been leaked extensively, some tenuous benchmark results have appeared, and a smattering of errant details about their launch have surfaced.

Last month, a few prices posted by a leaker suggested that the series would cost uncomfortably more than their predecessors. The 12900K was pinned at $705. But not long after, the American retailer Provantage listed the processors at more reasonable prices, including $605 for the flagship 12900K.

Now, the Dutch version of Amazon has chimed in to add a third opinion. Converted to USD, and with tax excluded, the Core i9-12900K comes out to $812, the i7-12700K to $615, and the i5-12600K to $311.

Hardware often costs more in Europe than America, but even so, these prices are disconcerting.

Model Listed Price (Euros, w/ VAT) Untaxed Price (Euros, w/o VAT) USD Price (w/o VAT) Cores/Threads
Core i9-12900K €846.92 €700 $812 16/24
Core i7-12700K €641.38 €530 $615 12/20
Core i5-12600K €323.83 €268 $311 10/16

Amazon may be anticipating a shortage of the processors, and pre-emptively pricing them above their recommended retail price. But, because Intel is using its own foundries to make them, there might be enough of the processors around to force retailers to lower their prices over time.

Amazon’s listing also shows off Alder Lake’s new boxes, which were leaked a few days ago.

Intel is expected to announce the Alder Lake lineup at its Innovation event on October 28-29. The processors will go on sale a week later.

Masthead credit: Redd

Permalink to story.

 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,036   +863
If they perform better than Ryzen 5000 then retailers will mark up the prices to ensure they can still sell Ryzen 5000 parts.

Still shows how much prices have increased since Ryzen launched. Pre Ryzen era, the 7700K was $300 and top of the product stack. Now the 5600X was bottom of the stack and cost the same $300 on release.

Now Intel are copying AMDs pricing and we have an i5 for more money than 2017s i7. Thanks AMD.
 

Aryassen

Posts: 185   +220
If they perform better than Ryzen 5000 then retailers will mark up the prices to ensure they can still sell Ryzen 5000 parts.

Still shows how much prices have increased since Ryzen launched. Pre Ryzen era, the 7700K was $300 and top of the product stack. Now the 5600X was bottom of the stack and cost the same $300 on release.

Now Intel are copying AMDs pricing and we have an i5 for more money than 2017s i7. Thanks AMD.
I still don't understand how is this AMD's fault? What's stopping Intel to sell their flagship 12900K for $300? I'm sure it would be an instant hit and would fly off the shelves like crazy (hell, I would buy one!).

I think they sell it for that much simply because they know they can.

Sidenote: if the past 3 decades I have watched this circus taught me anything is that competition is a good thing, and without it, prices usually go higher (or in this case, even higher)...so who knows, without AMD, 12900K might be sold $999 or something...
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 152   +240
I still don't understand how is this AMD's fault? What's stopping Intel to sell their flagship 12900K for $300? I'm sure it would be an instant hit and would fly off the shelves like crazy (hell, I would buy one!).

I think they sell it for that much simply because they know they can.

Sidenote: if the past 3 decades I have watched this circus taught me anything is that competition is a good thing, and without it, prices usually go higher (or in this case, even higher)...so who knows, without AMD, 12900K might be sold $999 or something...
For some people...EVERYTHING is AMD's fault.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,036   +863
I still don't understand how is this AMD's fault? What's stopping Intel to sell their flagship 12900K for $300? I'm sure it would be an instant hit and would fly off the shelves like crazy (hell, I would buy one!).

I think they sell it for that much simply because they know they can.

Sidenote: if the past 3 decades I have watched this circus taught me anything is that competition is a good thing, and without it, prices usually go higher (or in this case, even higher)...so who knows, without AMD, 12900K might be sold $999 or something...
Why would Intel sell for that low when the competition get away with really high pricing?

I do think competition is good I’m general but in the CPU world at least, prices have only gone up since AMD started making competent CPUs again.

Im not blaming AMD for Intels prices. But I do blame AMD for raising the prices of consumer grade CPUs in general.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 931   +1,307
Why would Intel sell for that low when the competition get away with really high pricing?

I do think competition is good I’m general but in the CPU world at least, prices have only gone up since AMD started making competent CPUs again.

Im not blaming AMD for Intels prices. But I do blame AMD for raising the prices of consumer grade CPUs in general.

And what did you expect to happen? AMD selling 16 core CPU for $300? Let me remind you that Intel before Ryzen was selling 10 core CPU's for $1700 on their HEDT platform, the 7700K you were getting were just scraps. CPU's in fact got way cheaper since Ryzen came out, compare 5900X to Core i7 6900X or whatever that was called you get way more for way less
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,973   +2,305
TechSpot Elite
If they perform better than Ryzen 5000 then retailers will mark up the prices to ensure they can still sell Ryzen 5000 parts.

Still shows how much prices have increased since Ryzen launched. Pre Ryzen era, the 7700K was $300 and top of the product stack. Now the 5600X was bottom of the stack and cost the same $300 on release.

Now Intel are copying AMDs pricing and we have an i5 for more money than 2017s i7. Thanks AMD.

If you're thanking AMD for making your 4c8t Intel processors $95 instead of the $300 Intel used to charge you, then I'm sure AMD will accept that gesture.

Some perspective:

The 5600x is 65-90% faster than the 7700K for 12% less money, less than 4 years later.

A bit less than 4 years earlier than the 7700K, Intel was giving us the 4770K, so Intel gave us about a 20% increase in performance over that time at the same price. The point that people still utterly fail to see is that Intel was no longer selling top of the line CPUs even by Haswell times. They just gave us **midrange** CPUs and labeled them as high end "i7" for the low, low price of $330. For years. And everyone ate it up like sheep.

What's happened is AMD added new performance segments at the top, using the "7" moniker accurately for once, and sold them at a discount, finally forcing Intel to do the same with the 8700K. Once AMD was able to resurrect their dead brand image with enthusiasts, all both companies needed to do was add more performance and *new segments* at the top with the corresponding price increases. The real "7" and "9" series CPUs, with "7" and "9" series pricing.

And both are selling for their $400-800 prices, proving that this could have been done long ago but AMD couldn't and Intel wouldn't.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,036   +863
If you're thanking AMD for making your 4c8t Intel processors $95 instead of the $300 Intel used to charge you, then I'm sure AMD will accept that gesture.

Some perspective:

The 5600x is 65-90% faster than the 7700K for 12% less money, less than 4 years later.

A bit less than 4 years earlier than the 7700K, Intel was giving us the 4770K, so Intel gave us about a 20% increase in performance over that time at the same price. The point that people still utterly fail to see is that Intel was no longer selling top of the line CPUs even by Haswell times. They just gave us **midrange** CPUs and labeled them as high end "i7" for the low, low price of $330. For years. And everyone ate it up like sheep.

What's happened is AMD added new performance segments at the top, using the "7" moniker accurately for once, and sold them at a discount, finally forcing Intel to do the same with the 8700K. Once AMD was able to resurrect their dead brand image with enthusiasts, all both companies needed to do was add more performance and *new segments* at the top with the corresponding price increases. The real "7" and "9" series CPUs, with "7" and "9" series pricing.

And both are selling for their $400-800 prices, proving that this could have been done long ago but AMD couldn't and Intel wouldn't.
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 931   +1,307
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.

CPU's got cheaper not more expensive you just don't see it, I don't remember Intel rushing in and selling us 8 core CPU's for $330 before Ryzen, plus look at the improvement we did get from Intel form 2600K - 7700K, its actually not that great!!
 
Last edited:

kiwigraeme

Posts: 645   +495
Prices are now drifting down on some CPUs - there are a lot of supply side issues , On the CPU side I am more optimistic - as they don't have to be monstrosities like GPUs .
All I know was for 5 or 6 years I use to look at new Intel chips - and decided 15% increases YOY was BS - for increasing prices - I think you even had to drop down - I would of never brought a I9 flagship - what $1000 to do 10% more the I7 at $500 - my numbers may be wrong - just from vague memories US/NZD etec etc
Wasn't it you needed to wait 5 or 6 years before an upgrade actually may sense .

CPUs as stated about have one bigger problem that GPUs ( well much more so ) - they compete with themselves . If gaming at 4K it's GPU constrained .
So why would I buy a I5 2017 blah ( with features deliberately ripped out ) that is only 30% more faster than a Intel 2014 Blah blah ) for the same price .

So AMD & Intel will know making faster and faster CPUs at higher & higher prices -won't work for the bulk of customers - as NO REAL world improvement - plus there will be killer M1 type cpus coming . So makes sense on promoting other factors like energy efficiency - Nintendo/Steam/Foldables/ a new surge in Tablets is coming .

Anyway if AMD was cost +10% - would we get those better Drivers , better R&D

-plus wrongly or rightly Lisa and other CEOs have to balance shareholders, customers, brand image, future outlook - one of the reasons they get paid well
 

Aryassen

Posts: 185   +220
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.
OK, so if I go: "Bad, bad AMD - You have been a bad boy", is that going to make things better? Come on :)

You asked why would Intel sell their processors so cheap ($300) when AMD can get away with much higher prices...well, I ask again, why wouldn't they? In that case, nobody (in their right mind) would buy "that expensive crap" from AMD, Intel would sell a lot of products, would make a lot of money, would grab back the significant market share they have lost (in the last 3 years, due to their ignornace), and drive the business of their competition into the ground. All good things (for Intel), don't you think?

Let me share my theory: AMD actually DID bring (a lot) more cores for the same money, with their 1xxx, 2xxx and 3xxx CPUs, only pandemic sent the semiconductor world to sh*t in 2020, and we are still not over it, so chips costs a lot more to make (in general, and that includes both Intel and AMD)

Supply chains got interrupted so bad by now that CAR manufacturing plants are being temporarily shut down...you got that? CARS can't be manufactured (by the millions), due to missing chips. Meanwhile "work from home" raised demand to hights never seen before. Rare-earth metal shoot up, and TSMC have raised their prices by some 40%, so I'm actually surprised that apart from GPUs, we have a good supply (and good selection) of PC components.

Intel still has the power to sell their chips for $300, or $350, or for whatever they like (especially that they are not affected by TSMC's price hike - they have their own fab). Nobody stops them (I'll even hold the door...). Only they can't, because (at least that's what I think) that price would make them a massive loss in the current environment (well, either that, or they are greedy little buggers like the rest of them big fancy corporations)
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,435   +2,567
I'm disappointed (understatement) with new hardware prices so I simply haven't bought anything significant. I bought a PS5 specifically because of the ludicrous PC prices.

PC always had a viable case against new consoles, initial cost was high but there was money to be saved elsewhere. You could buy an upgrade GPU and fit it in a few years old machine for the price of a new console. The new GPU obliterated it usually if you had chosen your CPU wisely. Now because of the prices these days it's literally impossible to justify, when new GPUs no faster like an RTX3060 cost 30+ percent more than the entire machine. The only way hardware seems to be reasonably priced at the moment is if you buy bundles or pre-builts.

Despite the fact I have always built all my own machines I am seriously considering a pre-built this Christmas as an easy cheap hardware upgrade until it's realistic to custom build again. Sad days.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,973   +2,305
TechSpot Elite
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

Please show where I make an excuse for AMD. Anywhere. I'm explaining why they can and should charge more. Because new CPUs deliver more.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

That's called business. Only a fool running a business sells a product for less than the market will pay for it. Especially when lower tier products are both cheaper and *more than adequate for a similar job* (3600, 10400). If AMD CPUs are stitting on shelves gathering dust then the price is wrong. But that's clearly not happening.

Make no mistake: An 8+ core processor is a halo product. The only reason AMD sold the 1700 and 2700 for cheapish is because their reputation was trash and those processors were only faster in some workloads, not all. As they improved the speed of their processors, AMD wasn't about to give anyone that increase in speed for free because that's bad business. The 5800X processor is now $120 more list for a lot more performance than either the 7700K or the previous gen 3700X. You want more, you pay more, and BTW that price is coming down, by about $55 off list as of now.

Still don't want to pay more? There's still the 5600X, 3700X, 11700K, 10700K for similar prices and all are *great* processors. 11400, 3600, 10400 if you need to go lower, all very good. Lots of choice.

Business.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Do you have a point about the 3990X? Do you begrudge AMD for creating CPUs for different price and performance points? Should there be less choice?

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.

Lol @Wake up. Wow, you totally showed me there. Stick to the discussion.

I discussed business above. And in my first post. Read your last paragraph there and apply it to your complaints above about AMD being in business to charge more for higher tier products. That's the point.

And Intel is also in business to charge more for higher tier products, they just didn't do it right with their artificially segmented HEDT line prior to Coffee Lake. AMD showed them how to do it right by incorporating those core counts into mainstream MoBos and charging more for a new tier of products, but not ridiculously more. They caught on pretty quickly.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,624   +6,411
847 Euros. Ouch! And that's not including what's sure to be eye-watering mobo and memory pricing.
Hey, for those of you who simply demand the "newest, fastest, and bestest", of all things computer components, maybe your tears will wash the dust off of your credits cards.

FWIW, a top of the line "Pentium 4 "Extreme edition", used to list for about a thousand dollars.

On a price versus performance comparison, there simply is now comparison between what you'll be getting for $800.00 nowadays, and the 90 nm process width trash you'd be buying in 2005.

Life sucks, you're addicted, the dollar value is down, get over it.

Besides, you have no proof of what Intel's costs are to produce these chips. You can only fantasize about what you think it should be, or what you'd like it to be..

Yeah, AMD's comparative prices are lower, but with good reason. It's a company that's trying to claw it's was back from the verge of bankruptcy not so many years ago, any way they can.

Guess what, AMD was forced to move out of "silicon Valley", at a time they couldn't even afford to have the grass cut.

So, you can whimper, whine, and caterwaul all you like, but at the end of the day, many of you are desperate enough to pay double MSRP for a video card to some a**hole scalper, because you, "can't live without it".

These days, a heroin habit is more affordable than a gaming jones.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,624   +6,411
AMD almost went bankrupt Ryzen was their last chance, what was Intel's excuse? Laziness and greed....
And like I said before, all that "profit taking" you're accusing Intel of, has allowed them to break ground on 3 or 4 new fabs, while AMD is still kissing TSMC's a**.

Intel is a manufacturer, AMD is a design firm. Try to take that into account while you're blowing up all this fanboy nonsense.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,805   +3,033
And like I said before, all that "profit taking" you're accusing Intel of, has allowed them to break ground on 3 or 4 new fabs, while AMD is still kissing TSMC's a**.

Intel is a manufacturer, AMD is a design firm. Try to take that into account while you're blowing up all this fanboy nonsense.

Haven‘t generous government subsidies helped Intel break ground on those new fabs and they‘re in the process of asking EU countries for handouts, as well ?
 

jpuroila

Posts: 389   +236
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.

i3 10105 is a 4c/8t CPU with performance comparable to 7700k. It has Recommended Customer Price of $122, a little more than third of what the latter used to cost. If you're paying more for CPUs, it's only because you're demanding a lot more performance.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,045   +3,909
TechSpot Elite
You’re just making excuses for AMD. You’ve also assumed that we should not expect improvements for CPUs.

The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry.

AMD could have driven prices down, they could have continued with releasing 8 cores for the price of the old i7s but they did the opposite.

And then AMD also launched the 64 core 3990X. The worlds most expensive production CPU.

Wake up mate, this is a corporation on the path for profits and nothing else. Although what do you expect? AMD will never put anything else above its own profits. They are an American corporation! Lisa Su will be admired by capitalists for years to come, she is already the highest paid female CEO in the world.
"The fact is since Ryzen came along, we all pay a lot more for our CPUs. Sure you get more performance but that’s expected in the semiconductor industry." - the difference is in how much more performance you are getting for the same money. AMD brought the cost of high performance CPUs way down. You can get similar or even much better 7700k perf now for way under 200$ (as low as 120-150$).

Without AMD you would still be paying 300$ for 4 core CPUs with 5% bumps in performance per generation.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,624   +6,411
Haven‘t generous government subsidies helped Intel break ground on those new fabs and they‘re in the process of asking EU countries for handouts, as well ?
So what? Isn't Apple supposedly based in Ireland to avoid taxes. Doesn't Amazon lobby for tax breaks when selecting a location for a new "distribution center". And hasn't Elon Musk practically sucked the life out of the US government for tax incentives for both Tesla and Space-X?. In Tesla's case, he built a huge factory in China, after he ran out of tax breaks in the US.

Pick one social caste I feel like listening to the least, Musk's fanboyz, AMD fanboysz, or Apple fanboyz
A: Musk fanboyz
B:AMD fanboyz
C: Apple fanboyx
D: All of the above, I wish they'd all shut up

If you guessed "D" you guessed right..

Think I'm wrong? Read this:
 
Last edited: