# AMD E3 Next Horizon Event: Live Blog



## btarunr (Jun 10, 2019)

It's been a very busy May-June for AMD as the company pushes out its major client-segment product lines spread across Computex 2019, and E3 2019. At Computex, the company focused on its 3rd generation Ryzen "Zen 2" desktop processors, and led its partners to show us a galaxy of new motherboards based on the AMD X570 chipset. It turns out that the company was saving a handful processor SKUs focused on gamers for E3. 

The second important product launch of course is Radeon RX 5700 series, based on AMD's new "Navi 10" silicon on which its new RDNA graphics architecture debuts. With its AIB (add-in board) partners expected to be allowed to make custom-design cards, and based on what little nuggets of information AMD put out, "Navi" promises to stir up a key performance-segment price-band that's currently held by NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2070 and RTX 2060. The AMD keynote will see the company CEO Dr. Lisa Su and her top execs take centerstage to make some big announcements. With E3 being a purely entertainment / client-segment forum, the AMD keynote promises not bore with tiresome topics such as AI, self-driving cars, etc.



 

2:30 PM PDT: Ahead of its keynote, AMD posted a teaser video of its new RDNA graphics architecture on YouTube.












3:00 PM PDT: The event begins with CEO Dr. Lisa Su taking centerstage. "Exciting time for gamers everywhere, with coherence between hardware and software." 



 



3:06 PM PDT: "AMD owes its recent success to big technology bets that are paying off now."





3:07 PM PDT: Lisa Su confirms next-generation PlayStation is powered by AMD IP, as is Google Stadia. Also talks about the Xbox "Project Scarlett"

3:08 PM PDT: PC. Now we're talking.





3:11 PM PDT: Key details on Zen 2 CPU architecture at the heart of Ryzen 3000. Also AMD's performance claims. We've seen these slides at the Computex 2019 keynote. 



 

 



3:16 PM PDT: AMD answering Intel's "real-world gaming" challenge:



 



3:18 PM PDT: Ryzen 5 3600X specs confirmed, including gaming performance. Beats Core i5-9600K.



 

 



All CPU models available 7/7/2019. 

3:20 PM PDT: Time to talk Navi. Maintains RDNA is a cleanslate architecture.



 

 

 



3:25 PM PDT: Meet the Radeon RX 5700 XT. Leadership performance in its class.





3:27 PM PDT: The leaks seem to be correct. "Ready for overclocking"



 



Performance beats the RTX 2070 in World War Z.





3:29 PM PDT: Radeon RX 5700 (non-XT) Specs:





Up to 10% faster than RTX 2060 (RX 5700 non-XT).





Radeon Media Engine supports 4K encode and decode, and updated codecs for hardware-acceleration. Radeon Display Engine has updated connectivity.

3:33 PM PDT: FidelityFX pre-baked free-to-use special effects that improve visual fidelity without performance cost; available through GPUOpen.


 



3:35 PM PDT: Radeon Image Sharpening is essentially FidelityFX for games that don't support it.




3:36 PM PDT: Radeon Anti-Lag is a groundbreaking new feature that works to reduce GPU-to-monitor lag and input lag. Treat for e-sports gamers.


 

 

Lower input-lag without increasing frame-rates!


 



3:40 PM PDT: Pricing! Availability 7/7/2019, both SKUs. RX 5700 XT is priced at $449, and RX 5700 at $379. "Gears 5" bundled!




3:47 PM PDT: Gears 5 as rendered on an RX 5700 XT.




Although Gears 5 releases September, RX 5700-series buyers who get the game bundled also have early access to pre-release testing versions from July.

3:54 PM PDT: Borderlands 3 is Ryzen+Radeon optimized, including FidelityFX. Gearbox also uttered "AMD Studios," an internal dev-relations moniker, detailed as a steady supply of AMD hardware to game developers at Gearbox. AMD is flexing its dev-relations muscle once again.




4:00 PM PDT: Unity talks about HDRP. Also confirms Ryzen+Radeon optimization, and support for FidelityFX.


 



4:07 PM PDT: Ubisoft confirms Ryzen+Radeon optimization for Tom Clancy's "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint," including FidelityFX, async-compute, FreeSync 2 HDR.


 

 



4:11 PM PDT: AMD launches Radeon RX 5700X 50th Anniversary Edition with 1.98 GHz Boost frequency, priced at $499, exclusively on AMD.com


 

4:12 AM PDT: AMD also announces Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core processor, priced $749, launches September.




*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 10, 2019)

$499 for the upper level Navi and $399 for the lower Navi.

New "Frontier Edition" aka Reference Design makes a come back, +$50 for both "FE" SKU. At launch only "FE version" would be available directly from AMD, AIB cards will release August~September.

Probably gonna be wrong but it is always fun to shit-guessing


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 10, 2019)

So you can follow along

Youtube









Facebook - *Here*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 10, 2019)

It started.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 10, 2019)

The best is going to be for last, lisa just ended the ryzen lineup and i think she will leave the 16 cores for last.


----------



## windwhirl (Jun 10, 2019)

btarunr said:


> 3:25 PM PDT: Meet the Radeon RX 5700 XT. Leadership performance in its class.



I'll be honest, at first I thought she was holding the card so hard that it just bent under the pressure lol


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 10, 2019)

$449 and $379, Meh.

It is OK


----------



## windwhirl (Jun 10, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> $449 and $379, Meh.
> 
> It is OK



Close enough   

Still, somewhat better than what you guessed.


----------



## Mephis (Jun 10, 2019)

We will see with reviews if Nvidia needs to lower prices.

No 16 core Ryzen 3xxx?


----------



## Mistral (Jun 10, 2019)

windwhirl said:


> I'll be honest, at first I thought she was holding the card so hard that it just bent under the pressure lol



Dr. Su Hulking out...


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 10, 2019)

Sooooooo 

I guess the "Waiting for Navi" train is finally coming to a mediocre stop? What do the fans "wait for" next now?


----------



## Metroid (Jun 10, 2019)

5700 xt seems to be the best deal, $70 for 20% more performance.







rtx 2070 x rtx 2060 = 20%.
5700 xt  x 5700 = 20%.
5700 xt  x rtx 2070 = 10%.
5700      x rtx 2060 = 10%.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 10, 2019)

At 380 RX5700 is DOA and at 450 RX5700XT could be ok ish depending what real performance is . But yeah hard reality is that AMD barely equals gtx 1080 and 1080Ti with 7nm GPUs and they dont have any huge pricing advantage anymore so im afraid Nvidia 7nm is going to hurt  !


----------



## Mephis (Jun 10, 2019)

Interesting that they didn't mention any power consumption numbers for the gpus. Probably not a good sign.


----------



## kings (Jun 10, 2019)

There goes the RTX 2070 competitor for $330.

Better than nothing, I guess!


----------



## Metroid (Jun 10, 2019)

RH92 said:


> At 380 RX5700 is DOA and at 450 RX5700XT could be ok ish depending what real performance is . But yeah hard realitt is that AMD barely equals gtx 1080 and 1080Ti with 7nm GPUs and they dont have any huge pricing advantage anymore so im afraid Nvidia 7nm is going to hurt  !



the only hope for the 5700 is overclock to get closer to 5700 xt as it has higher clocks but it can do no better as it has less stream processors.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 10, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Interesting that they didn't mention any power consumption numbers for the gpus. Probably not a good sign.



According to Videocardz leaks 5700XT is 225W TBP and 5700 is 180W


----------



## Mephis (Jun 10, 2019)

RH92 said:


> According to Videocardz leaks 5700XT is 225W TBP and 5700 is 180W



Didn't Videocardz and TPU also say that a 16 core 3950x was being announced too? Not sure what we can believe.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 10, 2019)

Zen 2 gaming performance looks good if true outside of AMD marketing slide. Threadripper 3.0 is looking more like a proper HEDT without compromising gaming performance like the first crappy ones.

Radeon however... is only competitive against neutered Nvidia cards that's nowhere close to the 2080 Ti (also a neutered card LOL).


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 10, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Zen 2 gaming performance looks good if true outside of AMD marketing slide. *Threadripper 3.0 is looking more like a proper HEDT without compromising gaming *performance like the first crappy ones.
> 
> Radeon however... is only competitive against neutered Nvidia cards that's nowhere close to the 2080 Ti (also a neutered card LOL).



Where did you see TR3?  Are you from an alternative universe?


----------



## Wavetrex (Jun 10, 2019)

Pffffbt... I'll keep my 1080 for another year.
2018-2019 will be known as years of GPU ripoffs. 2020 too maybe.

Edit:
Actually no, I'll keep it until it breaks from old age.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Didn't Videocardz and TPU also say that a 16 core 3950x was being announced too? Not sure what we can believe.



usually they leave the best for last for closure.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> Didn't Videocardz and TPU also say that a 16 core 3950x was being announced too? Not sure what we can believe.



Well those leaks showed presentation material wich is real and confirms the existance of a 16core  but AMD can always chose to launch or not a product a the last second so yeah i don't see the contradiction here . AMD chose to not launch the 16cores part ( yet )   that  doesn't make those leaks any less true !


----------



## The Lighthouse (Jun 11, 2019)

Those new Navi cards are just terrible unfortunately.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Where did you see TR3?  Are you from an alternative universe?


Can't you tell it was my guesstimate? LOL
If Zen 2 mainstream is good at gaming, then that will also translate to Threadripper.


----------



## Mephis (Jun 11, 2019)

RH92 said:


> Well those leaks showed presentation material wich is real and confirms the existance of a 16core  but AMD can always chose to launch or not a product a the last second so yeah i don't see the contradiction here . AMD chose to not launch the 16cores part  that  doesn't make those leaks any less true !



My only point was that we shouldn't take leaks and rumors as facts. I could also be very wrong, they may announce it at the very end of the event. The leaked material looked weird to me, like it had been poorly edited.


----------



## PerfectWave (Jun 11, 2019)

AMD now is not for budget ppl anymore. Put in your brain


----------



## RH92 (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> My only point was that we shouldn't take leaks and rumors as facts. I could also be very wrong, they may announce it at the very end of the event. The leaked material looked weird to me, like it had been poorly edited.



I get what you saying but those leaks comes from Videocardz you can be 200% sure those are as real as it gets !


----------



## Mephis (Jun 11, 2019)

RH92 said:


> I get what you saying but those leaks comes from Videocardz you can be 200% sure those are as real as it gets !



OK. We will see. Will be glad to be wrong.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 11, 2019)

YEEEES I WAS RIGHT!

$499 special edition exclusive 5700XT! ONLY from AMD!


----------



## RH92 (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> OK. We will see. Will be glad to be wrong.


Told ya


----------



## Naito (Jun 11, 2019)

That $250 premium for the 3950X over a 3900X stings a bit


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 11, 2019)

Naito said:


> That $250 premium for the 3950X over a 3900X stings a bit



I mean they have to finish moving their Threadripper Gen 2 CPUs


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

Naito said:


> That $250 premium for the 3950X over a 3900X stings a bit



still cheaper than the threadripper 16 cores $849, i'm glad it was not $999. That means threadripper wont be as expensive as i thought it out to be, however it will be much more expensive than the 2xxx series.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 11, 2019)

It's an utter bargain compared to 9920x too.


----------



## Mephis (Jun 11, 2019)

RH92 said:


> Told ya



I humbly stand corrected. I was wrong.

I was right about that leaked slide looking fake. They used a different one.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 11, 2019)

That hail mary at the end, everyone had written off the possibility of a 3950X announcement that far in.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> I humbly stand corrected. I was wrong.



I knew they would keep the best for last, that is usually protocol to end the show perfect. Remember that the tdp is based on the base clock frequency, so reason 3950x 3.5ghz 105w. That is still impressive, just for comparison.


Ryzen     2950XAugust 31, 2018, US $89916 (32)3.54.4180w


Ryzen  3950XJuly, 7 2019, US $749 16 (32)3.54.7105w


Ryzen 3900XJuly 7, 2019, US $49912 (24)3.84.6105w


----------



## springs113 (Jun 11, 2019)

The 3950x cost $100 more than i expected but is $250 less than my $1950x.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jun 11, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> It's an utter bargain compared to 9920x too.


Look at how much Intel was charging for a 16-core Xeon just 2 years ago ...

$749 is fantastic for such a compute monster .... and also very likely to slowly drop in time.
The only sad part is the wait until September-October.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> The only sad part is the wait until September-October.



Time to get the 12 cores and not look back. 3950x is far away. They will hand pick all 3950x to be very binned silicons hence 105w.


----------



## Crackong (Jun 11, 2019)

R.I.P Intel's whole HEDT lineup.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 11, 2019)

Regular 5700X looks ok for 450 when compared to 2070. On the other hand the lower part should have been 350. Tops. 
But my biggest issue is that the chip is barely larger than RX 580, yet the prices have almost doubled. I know 7nm is more expensive than 14/12 from GloFo, but not 2X more. 
My 2c


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 11, 2019)

Crackong said:


> R.I.P Intel's whole HEDT lineup.



Quad DDR4, more PCIE lanes and AVX512. Remember HEDT is for productivity, not just for gaming.


----------



## Mats (Jun 11, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Regular 5700X looks ok for 450 when compared to 2070. On the other hand the lower part should have been 350. Tops.
> But my biggest issue is that the chip is barely larger than RX 580, yet the prices have almost doubled. I know 7nm is more expensive than 14/12 from GloFo, but not 2X more.
> My 2c


Performance also sets the price, not just die area. Compare with Pentium 66 MHz. 

Anyway, do we really need more comments about what the price should have been? I think AMD knows business better than most of us individuals.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Quad DDR4, more PCIE lanes and AVX512. Remember HEDT is for productivity, not just for gaming.


Still RIP.

Price difference is too great.
You could buy TWO 16-core AMD computers for the price of ONE 16-core Intel.

(Or almost 3x 12c vs 1 12c Intel)

Oh, and Threadripper will come... probably announced later in the year, after 3950X launch, and completely smash anything Intel HEDT has.


----------



## RH92 (Jun 11, 2019)

Mephis said:


> I humbly stand corrected. I was wrong.
> 
> I was right about that leaked slide looking fake. They used a different one.



Nah they did used this one https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2019/06/AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X-16-core-CPU.jpg aswell during the presentation .

NP but yeah generaly speaking leaks from Videocardz can be taken as facts .


----------



## kings (Jun 11, 2019)

Navi is overpriced, like the Nvidia lineup!

But, it was somewhat expected that AMD would take advantage of Nvidia raising prices to raise their prices as well!

This release will not create the desired impact and will not put Nvidia on the alert, but at least now there is an alternative.

AMD didn´t say anything about TDP, which probably means that the 12nm Nvidia continues to be significantly more efficient!


----------



## Mats (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Navi is overpriced, like the Nvidia lineup!


So buy something cheaper then.


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 11, 2019)

I realized from these slides and performance graphs that the few years old RX480 Video card with 8GB I have is 1/3 the performance of Nvidia's top of the line, and was 1/10 the price.

The processor I have right now is 80% of the performance of intels' best, and was $40.

The conventional logic of upgrades is dead.

Two to 4 years difference isn't squat, unless you're talking AMD; they've came a long way in 4 years.

I replayed Crysis last week with all the eyecandy on, and it still was over 30fps at 1920x1200.

Much better than the first time I played it, lol.

This mobo played well with 3x 7970's in crossfire; I need to find two more 480's, lol.


----------



## kings (Jun 11, 2019)

Mats said:


> So buy something cheaper then.



Why so salty? I get you are an AMD fan, but is the reality!

If people criticized the price of RTX cards, they can´t say now that the price is good in AMD.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 11, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Still RIP.
> 
> Price difference is too great.
> You could buy TWO 16-core AMD computers for the price of ONE 16-core Intel.
> ...



TR yes, AM4 16 core no.

I am waiting for TR3, this X99 platform is getting on my nerves.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Navi is overpriced, like the Nvidia lineup!
> 
> But, it was somewhat expected that AMD would take advantage of Nvidia raising prices to raise their prices as well!
> 
> ...


This node is not cheap to manufacture on, on the path Nvidia are on I shudder at the thought of a 3080Ti.

I think I'll stick to dreaming about the 16 core, I would love to crunch with it but I think the 12 core is enough out of my reach as is.


----------



## Mats (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Why so salty? I get you are an AMD fan, but is the reality!


I'm just tired of all the thousand comments about what everything *should* cost, no matter the brand. Nobody cares, especially not Intel, AMD or Nvidia, see my previous post.
Call me AMD fan all you want, I haven't had an AMD CPU since my old Opteron 146, I'm writing this on an i5 laptop. 

It's nothing personal.

I get that saying "it should cost this" is a way of not having to say "I can't afford it".
The latter, by the way, holds true for me.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Navi is overpriced, like the Nvidia lineup!
> 
> But, it was somewhat expected that AMD would take advantage of Nvidia raising prices to raise their prices as well!
> 
> ...


It really looks like price-fixing is activated. Can’t wait for Intel to come into the party and trash this uncle-niece alliance lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> TR yes, AM4 16 core no.


Pretty sure 3950X is an AM4 processor...

TR is probably up to 32 cores (4 chiplets) and EPYC is probably up to 64 cores (8 chiplets).


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 11, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty sure 3950X is an AM4 processor...
> 
> TR is probably up to 32 cores (4 chiplets) and EPYC is probably up to 64 cores (8 chiplets).




I want 64c128t TR3 soooooo bad


----------



## MrPerforations (Jun 11, 2019)

so was my Msi™ Radeon™ RX vega 56 crossfire a good buy?
I am thinking hard about hurting my wallet on a AMD™ Ryzen 3800X.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 11, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Pretty sure 3950X is an AM4 processor...
> 
> TR is probably up to 32 cores (4 chiplets) and EPYC is probably up to 64 cores (8 chiplets).


A rep already said the next TR will have moar cores


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2019)

Suppose it could have 64 too, just with fewer Infinity Fabric links.


----------



## B-Real (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> $449 and $379, Meh.
> 
> It is OK


Interesting. We will see performance, consumption and what I'm most excited about, is that input lag lowering process.



xkm1948 said:


> Sooooooo
> 
> I guess the "Waiting for Navi" train is finally coming to a mediocre stop? What do the fans "wait for" next now?



What we know now it will be $50 cheaper than an RTX 2070 while being ~10% faster. When NV lowers the prices (if it happens), AMD can also lower it. The 5700 more expensive than the RTX 2060 is not good, however, if you check it's also 10%  faster and has +2 GB VRAM, which is not a bad thing to have at a GTX 1080 level, it justifies the price and makes it a better price-performance deal.



The Lighthouse said:


> Those new Navi cards are just terrible unfortunately.


No, they not. They look better price-performance ratio if we believe that +10% performance. Even the more expensive RX5700 is better value than the RTX2060 with +8% price and +10% perfomance, and having +2GB VRAM. That input lag reduction process seems interesting too. And I highly doubt AMD will only have 2 models in the Navi RX5XXX lineup.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 11, 2019)

hmh, not really sure what to think.  I expected between 2060 and 2070 so I guess this a bonus?  I suppose since I was considering a VII that I won't not consider this.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> TR yes, AM4 16 core no.
> 
> I am waiting for TR3, this X99 platform is getting on my nerves.


All indications are that TR3 will be skipped, at least 3xxx series. It might make comeback next year with zen3 & up to 4t per core.


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 11, 2019)

Navi.. I thought the prices are higher than l figured but I think there where Nvidia won't react right away.  Once production ramps, they'll need to get CPU/GPU figured out the mix of what people want.  Good position to be in. That said I want more on FidelityFX and see how RGT can make enroads with the developers.  Overall it was as expected.  But good to have AMD/RGT hitting on all cylinders even if it's just getting warm.  I think the market views it positive and money will be flowing in... not out and right now that's what they need.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 11, 2019)

Intel cannot even dream of producing a similar CPU at this price point right know. Oh my how times have changed.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Jun 11, 2019)

I wonder if there are plans to release some version of Navi 20.


----------



## Mamya3084 (Jun 11, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> All indications are that TR3 will be skipped, at least 3xxx series. It might make comeback next year with zen3 & up to 4t per core.



I wouldn't think so. TR is usually October release schedule. AMD would want to promote 64 lane pcie4 as a workstation option.


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 11, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> All indications are that TR3 will be skipped, at least 3xxx series. It might make comeback next year with zen3 & up to 4t per core.


The product names would be confusing after AM4 stole the *950X name with the 3950x. I'm gonna bet my left nut AMD's next HEDT will all be under the EPYC brand to challenge Intel's Xeon W-3175. And when you look at AMD's EPYC pricing, their EPYC 32 cores is $2000 while the 2990WX is $1799... that's not much of a difference compared to the pricing disparity of Skylake-X and its Xeon counterpart.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 11, 2019)

Divide Overflow said:


> I wonder if there are plans to release some version of Navi 20.



Likely too expensive to bring to the mainstream market at a reasonable perf/price level. We wont see anything 400 mm^2+ on 7nm from AMD until mid-late 2020.


----------



## Pumper (Jun 11, 2019)

Really disappointed on the Navi pricing, especially when those MSRPs are for the [still] blower GPUs, so a regular dual fan 5700 will be at $400 without RTX and other nvidia features.


----------



## springs113 (Jun 11, 2019)

Mamya3084 said:


> I wouldn't think so. TR is usually October release schedule. AMD would want to promote 64 lane pcie4 as a workstation option.


 no it is not.   I got my first gen TR  in August of 2017.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Jun 11, 2019)

1.98GHz boost on that anniversary edition, so there is definitely some headroom somewhere! Can't wait for binned AIB cards that should basically perform as well as my Radeon VII (sad) but cost so little I can get back at least 100 euros (yay!)!


----------



## Crackong (Jun 11, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Quad DDR4, more PCIE lanes and AVX512. Remember HEDT is for productivity, not just for gaming.



Thread-intensive Load -> ThreadRipper
Frequency-intensive Load -> 9900k
Encoding -> 9900k + quicksync

I don't see the place for Intel's HEDT lineup in productivity.


----------



## AceKingSuited (Jun 11, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> This node is not cheap to manufacture on, on the path Nvidia are on I shudder at the thought of a 3080Ti.
> 
> I think I'll stick to dreaming about the 16 core, I would love to crunch with it but I think the 12 core is enough out of my reach as is.



Agreed.  People just want to complain about anything these days and I'm tired of all the whining.  If making a cheaper graphics card is that easy; then there would be more companies doing it.  People were complaining about Nvidia's costs and were begging for an alternative from AMD.  We get the alternative but they don't like it as it isn't cheap enough for them.   The biggest whiners people with wine tastes but on a beer budget.   If you don't like it; don't buy it.  Simple as that.

I'm happy with AMD's CPU and GPU lineup and I'll be getting the 5700XT 50th anniversary edition to replace my 1070.


----------



## londiste (Jun 11, 2019)

Results in AMD slides are big resounding meh.
Unless you do workstation stuff like rendering Ryzen 3000 does not seem to bring anything new to the table.

There is something very interesting about Navi though, RX5700 in particular:
36 CU, 2304 SP, 144 TMU, 64 ROP, 256-bit 14GBPs GDDR6 at 448GB/s.
The numbers immediately sounded familiar. This is the exact spec for RTX2070. we will see 1:1 comparisons for Navi vs Turing. Stock cards RX5700 vs RTX2070, only clocks need to be normalized.


Spoiler


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

AceKingSuited said:


> The biggest whiners people with *whine *tastes but on a beer budget.



Fixed that for you...


----------



## HwGeek (Jun 11, 2019)

So like I thought, AMD maintained max 105W for backwards compatibility, but it let's you use the new CPU's at their full potential with new PBO/XFR that now offers Boost to max boost clocks too!
*Look at Ryzen 5 3600- It achieves 9900K ST score!*


----------



## john_ (Jun 11, 2019)

Navi prices are bad. They are for shareholders, not consumers. 

I really don't see a reason to say to a company "High prices, how great this is. Please, don't stop there". 
I also don't understand people who think that people complaining about the prices are just.... poor.
I also never understood people who where supporting monopolistic, or in this case duopolistic tactics. 

AMD's pricing on new CPUs is great. On GPUs, not so great. Probably they can't get enough capacity from TSMC, so putting lower prices would have been meaningless. Maybe they just keep up with Nvidia's pricing, because they know that higher future prices, is an advantage for them too. Let's not forget that AMD is also selling APUs, so higher descrete GPU pricing means also freedom to have APUs at higher price points in the future. They will integrate higher performing iGPUs in the near future thanks to 7nm, so moving descrete GPUs at higher price points, releases more price points for APUs. The next best performing APU could come at $199 or even over $200.

Anyone hoping Intel will come and fix that, Intel is a premium brand and the Intel sticker sometimes costs more than the product itself.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 11, 2019)

Hey guys how's it going. Remember when I said AdoredTV claiming the 16-core having a *base *clock of 4.3Ghz was absurd yet too many posters here laughed? Yeah, it was only 800Mhz higher than reality...3.5Ghz base clock on the 3950X is what we should have expected but common sense is in short order on tech forums these days.

Also, where is @*R0H1T*, I made a £10 bet with this guy no Ryzen 3000 launch CPU would have a base clock 4Ghz or higher.


----------



## springs113 (Jun 11, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Hey guys how's it going. Remember when I said AdoredTV claiming the 16-core having a *base *clock of 4.3Ghz was absurd yet too many posters here laughed? Yeah, it was only 800Mhz higher than reality...3.5Ghz base clock on the 3950X is what we should have expected but common sense is in short order on tech forums these days.
> 
> Also, where is @*R0H1T*, I made a £10 bet with this guy no Ryzen 3000 launch CPU would have a base clock 4Ghz or higher.


 honestly they could've easily put a 4ghz CPU out.  They wanted to keep the low tdps  so they let it be.   The 3900/3950 could've easily been one of those but AMD wanted that 105w tdp.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

john_ said:


> AMD's pricing on new CPUs is great. On GPUs, not so great. Probably they can't get enough capacity from TSMC, so putting lower prices would have been meaningless.


Maybe it's also because there are stocks of V56 / V64 to be sold.

But generally, AMD cannot be in nonstop "heavy undercutting to gain marketshare" mode.
It also doesn't seem to work in GPU market, with zounds of people buying 1050/1050Ti/1650 over 570.


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 11, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Also, where is @*R0H1T*, I made a £10 bet with this guy *no Ryzen 3000 launch CPU would have a base clock 4Ghz* or higher.


You're hanging by a 0.1 Ghz thread here & the entire 3xxx lineup isn't even launched yet. I'm not going anywhere, but I suggest you wait till the full lineup is revealed.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Hey guys how's it going. Remember when I said AdoredTV claiming the 16-core having a *base *clock of 4.3Ghz was absurd yet too many posters here laughed? Yeah, it was only 800Mhz higher than reality...3.5Ghz base clock on the 3950X is what we should have expected but common sense is in short order on tech forums these days.
> 
> Also, where is @*R0H1T*, I made a £10 bet with this guy no Ryzen 3000 launch CPU would have a base clock 4Ghz or higher.



4.7Ghz boost makes 4.3Ghz base not look that unrealistic at all.
Have you made claims about max clocks?


----------



## londiste (Jun 11, 2019)

medi01 said:


> 4.7Ghz boost makes 4.3Ghz base not look that unrealistic at all.
> Have you made claims about max clocks?


You are aware that the specifications for Ryzen 3000 processors are official and public, right?


			https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors/11776+1736+1896+2466
		




R0H1T said:


> You're hanging by a 0.1 Ghz thread here & the entire 3xxx lineup isn't even launched yet. I'm not going anywhere, but I suggest you wait till the full lineup is revealed.


What is missing from the lineup?
That 4.0GHz was a general claim here, what sparked the thing in the first place was the claimed 4.3GHz that was clearly excessive one and 3.9 GHz is 0.4GHz off from that.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 11, 2019)

I finally understand why they designed that Radeon like this





Lisa just has strong hands.



Shatun_Bear said:


> Hey guys how's it going. Remember when I said AdoredTV claiming the 16-core having a *base *clock of 4.3Ghz was absurd yet too many posters here laughed? Yeah, it was only 800Mhz higher than reality...3.5Ghz base clock on the 3950X is what we should have expected but common sense is in short order on tech forums these days.
> 
> Also, where is @*R0H1T*, I made a £10 bet with this guy no Ryzen 3000 launch CPU would have a base clock 4Ghz or higher.



Indeed where are they  Well played, sir.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

john_ said:


> Navi prices are bad. They are for shareholders, not consumers.
> 
> I really don't see a reason to say to a company "High prices, how great this is. Please, don't stop there".
> I also don't understand people who think that people complaining about the prices are just.... poor.
> ...



Do we have a choice? Where is the competition? In fact, this is getting true for more and more markets, where companies are consolidated on almost a weekly basis for billions of dollars.
This is unfortunately the world we're living in at the moment. A lot of innovation disappears before it even becomes a real product.
Here's a great example of a company that was bought out and disappeared before there was even a product
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2752

Unless Intel can come up with a decent GPU, it looks like we're stuck with Nvidia for the foreseeable future if you want a high-end graphics card and then we're stuck with the current insane pricing. It seems like you have to be a professional gamer at top level to be able to afford a decent graphics card now...
I don't have high hopes, but as Intel would be the underdog in the GPU market, they'd have to deliver something competitive in terms of pricing as well.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Unless Intel can come up with a decent GPU, it looks like we're stuck with Nvidia for the foreseeable future if you want a high-end graphics card


What? Because AMD doesn't have a product beating your 1080?
Hold on, it does.

PS
This kind of twisted "logic" in your post is mind boggling.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

medi01 said:


> What? Because AMD doesn't have a product beating your 1080?
> Hold on, it does.
> 
> PS
> This kind of twisted "logic" in your post is mind boggling.



Eh? I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're on about. Whatever my current PC is or isn't, isn't relevant to this discussion.

AMD hasn't been able to deliver a properly competitive GPU for several generations now, for whatever reason, so do you really think they'll pull a rabbit out of a hat and deliver something competitive now? Besides, we need more competition, as @john_  alluded to above. But clearly you're happy with a duopoly.

Maybe you don't remember the days when there was half a dozen or more GPU makers, but I do. Back then, there was competition, both in terms of performance and pricing and there was a wide choice of solutions to chose from. Sadly Nvidia and ATI became too dominant and all the other GPU makers either went bust or gave up. It's terrible for consumers when these things happen, but apparently you're happy buying a so-so product for a high price because, reasons...


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 11, 2019)

londiste said:


> What is missing from the lineup?


Ryzen 3, I assume you missed that one? There's also a possibility of other xx50 parts slotting in with higher clocks.


londiste said:


> That 4.0GHz was a general claim here, what sparked the thing in the first place was the claimed 4.3GHz that was clearly excessive one and 3.9 GHz is 0.4GHz off from that.


I only talked about 4 GHz base clock (nearly) being a certainty, 4.3 GHz was way down the list on what was plausible.


----------



## Windyson (Jun 11, 2019)

no usb type-c


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Here's a great example of a company that was bought out and disappeared before there was even a product
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/2752


Thanks for the link I forgot about Caustic Graphics. I did find these two boards from Caustic by Imagination.








						The future of ray tracing, reviewed: Caustic's R2500 accelerator finally moves us towards real-time ray tracing - ExtremeTech
					

Caustic Professional launched its new dedicated ray tracing solutions earlier this year, and we've gotten one of the high-end samples to test. Is this the future of consumer graphics?




					www.extremetech.com


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 11, 2019)

springs113 said:


> honestly they could've easily put a 4ghz CPU out.  They wanted to keep the low tdps  so they let it be.   The 3900/3950 could've easily been one of those but AMD wanted that 105w tdp.



This is my point, there is a huge difference between 'could have' and what is reasonable or what to expect. For TDP reasons, none of the launch SKUs were going past 4Ghz base, and there was also simply no need. So saying 'they could have easily put a 4Ghz CPU out' is equally silly.



R0H1T said:


> Ryzen 3, I assume you missed that one? There's also a possibility of other xx50 parts slotting in with higher clocks.
> I only talked about 4 GHz base clock (nearly) being a certainty, 4.3 GHz was way down the list on what was plausible.



Well there is 4.3Ghz base clock which is absurd on its own. But the claims from the Scottish guy was _4.3Ghz base clock on a sixteen core processor_, which I am still laughing about to this day (I'm that sad). This was the gigantic red flag warning us all that his info was fantasy but what frustrated me is the legions of 'fans' shooting any naysayers down without thinking!

And give it up, I doubt 4Ghz base on any of the remaining SKUs which is not really what our bet was about.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> AMD hasn't been able to deliver a properly competitive GPU for several generations now


In which slice of the market?
$1300? Yeah, how terrible.

In lower end? 570 stomping all over competition, still faster than 1650.
Mid range? Check pricing on V56 and V64.

And now the claim that $449 card that beats $500 card "isn't competitive". boo.


----------



## springs113 (Jun 11, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> This is my point, there is a huge difference between 'could have' and what is reasonable or what to expect. For TDP reasons, none of the launch SKUs were going past 4Ghz base, and there was also simply no need. So saying 'they could have easily put a 4Ghz CPU out' is equally silly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 how is what I said silly... honestly you sound silly getting bent out of shape about 100mhz.  The processor(3800x) is at 3.9ghz, adding 100mhz to that is not hard at all.  Im almost certain the extra 100mhz would've moved right off their goal of 105w tdp.  If you check out their entire line up 105w is their max tdp.  AMD did good stop whining about silly things.

On another note how do you guys complain about something you won't vee buying anyways.   If you don't like a product,  don't bad mouth it.   It's simple don't buy it and stay away from threads talking about it.  Spreading propaganda for what?   Self preservation?  Pleasure?   Smh.  This is why I usually stay off the forums.  The toxicity is rampant.   I've got plenty of AMD, Intel and Nvidia products in my household.  I will badmouth none of them.  I'll spend my money on what suits my needs not forum members.   I'll be getting an all AMD system once again, I can't justify 1300 U.S. on a GPU that will be obsolete in less than a year.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jun 11, 2019)

springs113 said:


> how is what I said silly... honestly you sound silly getting bent out of shape about 100mhz.  The processor(3800x) is at 3.9ghz, adding 100mhz to that is not hard at all.  Im almost certain the extra 100mhz would've moved right off their goal of 105w tdp.  If you check out their entire line up 105w is their max tdp.  AMD did good stop whining about silly things.



Behave yourself.


----------



## JB_Gamer (Jun 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Do we have a choice? Where is the competition? In fact, this is getting true for more and more markets, where companies are consolidated on almost a weekly basis for billions of dollars.
> This is unfortunately the world we're living in at the moment. A lot of innovation disappears before it even becomes a real product.
> Here's a great example of a company that was bought out and disappeared before there was even a product
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/2752
> ...



So who bought them out, do You know?

/Another swede - but not lost


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 11, 2019)

@springs113 On the other side, it probably is good for people to talk about the security issues on Intel (not necessarily directly bash them though) as there does not seem to be very little awareness of the problem or the impact of the so far released fixes in non-enthusiast circles.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

"When it comes to performance numbers, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X was overclocked to 5 GHz with a voltage of 1.608V across all 16 cores. "









						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Overclocked Beyond 5 GHz Across All 16 Cores On LN2, Destroys The Intel Core i9-9960X - MSI MEG X570 Pushes DDR4 To 5100 MHz On Air
					

AMD's recently announced Ryzen 9 3950X flagship processor with 16 cores is already breaking some world records with a 5 GHz overclock.




					wccftech.com
				




So I guess, 5ghz all cores will not happen after all ehhe


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 11, 2019)

I want to see it on custom liquid, not on LN2 etc.


----------



## londiste (Jun 11, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> @springs113 On the other side, it probably is good for people to talk about the security issues on Intel (not necessarily directly bash them though) as there does not seem to be very little awareness of the problem or the impact of the so far released fixes in non-enthusiast circles.








When looking at state of things in Intel's 9000 series (at least 9600K, 9700K and 9900K):
- Meltdown and Fireshadow/L1TF are fixed in hardware, Spectre and SSB are handled by OS/VMM (with help from firmware/hardware). This matches Zen and Zen+. Zen2 has some additional things for Spectre but the exact nature of the added hardware mitigation does not seem to be known yet and software component remains.
- Spectre V3a should be handled by the same mitigations as other Spectres on Intel CPUs. LazyFPU was IIRC handled by OSs.
- Spoiler and MDS are new enough that they could not be handled in hardware at this point. Both have some level of mitigation via firmware/software.

Impact is generally much lower for gaming and other light usage than server/rendering/compiling tests show.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Thanks for the link I forgot about Caustic Graphics. I did find these two boards from Caustic by Imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think it was ever really available though, I know they made a card, but it was only ever available to a few developers afaik.


----------



## unikin (Jun 11, 2019)

2019 sucks big time. I own ASUS GTX 1080TI STRIX (bought 2nd hand for $380) and have no real upgrade path. AMD has nothing and NVIDIA only offers TITAN like priced 2080TI. Demanding $1.100+ for a gaming GPU is an insult.

I'm a flight sim fan that's why I bought HP Reverb VR hmd. This thing has amazing PQ but running 4320x2160 resolution is a nightmare on 1080TI. I can hardly hit stable 60fps (no chance of hitting stable 90hz). Future of VR looks grim if GPU prices don't come down to earth.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

medi01 said:


> In which slice of the market?
> $1300? Yeah, how terrible.
> 
> In lower end? 570 stomping all over competition, still faster than 1650.
> ...



Did I mention pricing? No... You're the one that's price fixated.

Competitive in terms of performance. Nvidia has had the top 2-3 cards for several years now, you can't deny that.
Are they affordable? Hell no. That doesn't diminish the fact that they have been pushing out market leading hardware every year, whereas AMD has talked a lot of smack, yet never delivered in line with their talk...

Do I wish AMD was more competitive in terms of performance, of course, in fact, as I mentioned, I wish we had more competition in general, but I guess that's too hard for a fanboi to get...


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

There are some news saying windows 10 update 1903 fixed ryzen scheduler.








__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bz6egc


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 11, 2019)

JB_Gamer said:


> So who bought them out, do You know?
> 
> /Another swede - but not lost



Imagination Technologies, who in all fairness implemented some of the technology into their GPU IP, but they killed the desktop cards really quick.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Competitive in terms of performance.


I realize it's hard for people to tone down the bias and double standards, but this is f*cking ridiculous.

570 wipes the floor with 1050/1050ti/1650, yeah, that 2+ years old card is so good.
5700 handily beats 2060.
5700xt beats 2070.
VII is behind 2080, but not by much.
2080Ti at $1300 - fuck it, who cares

Or did you mean some other kind of "performance".



TheLostSwede said:


> ...several years now...


Glad we got down from "several generations". Now just need to figure out


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 11, 2019)

@unikin Does the title support crossfire? 2 x Navi might be good if they have crossfire enabled.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

medi01 said:


> I realize it's hard for people to tone down the bias and double standards, but this is f*cking ridiculous.
> 
> 570 wipes the floor with 1050/1050ti/1650, yeah, that 2+ years old card is so good.
> 5700 handily beats 2060.
> ...



I'm very impressed by Navi, polaris rx 480 was never even close to 1070.






As we can see rx 480 34%, gxt 1070 50%, that is a huge difference and now we see navi not yet a review but as stated by amd, 10% faster, imagine if the rx 480 was 10% faster than gtx 1070? So I consider navi a very good product, performance x watt = efficiency. rx 480 also used around 180 wats, first cards came with 1 x 6pin = 150, later amd change to 1 x 8 pin.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 11, 2019)

medi01 said:


> I realize it's hard for people to tone down the bias and double standards, but this is f*cking ridiculous.
> 
> 570 wipes the floor with 1050/1050ti/1650, yeah, that 2+ years old card is so good.
> 5700 handily beats 2060.
> ...



The key to his statements (which are fully correct, mind) is _timing _and _time to market._

Fury was less future proof (4GB) and a worse performer than 980ti. Today the latter runs circles around the former.
Vega was _late. _Polaris gave us Maxwell performance in the midrange a *full generation later* and never could go toe to toe with Pascal. And then mining came anyway (not AMD's fault, but hey, Nvidia kept shelves stocked a whole lot better).
Even with the delayed TTM, Vega could never really compete with Pascal. It only started competing (on price! Not performance) when mining died down and AMD slashed the price as well.
The midrange is irrelevant when it comes to analyzing progress between generations. Time to market doesn't really play a role there - you proved this by giving Vega as an example upper-midrange card. All they have to do is kick down last years cards a tier, but that still means its an older GPU and also a more costly one to make.

Radeon VII then? It just launched recently and Turing is out for over half a year. And it still doesn't really compete, its Vega all over again minus the mining inflation. Its only saving grace is 7nm allowing it to clock higher. Definitely not a performance win - 'not by much' but still late to market.

And yes, there is a halo card at a retarded price. But it still exists. AMD has no means to put out anything like it. They simply do not make it because they simply cannot; whereas, if they _could, _perhaps that 2080ti wouldn't even cost as much. That spells out as a repeat of all you've read above. Maybe Navi will do the catching up, I certainly hope so, but thus far, again, Navi 10 is _late. And Navi 20 is even later. _On top of that, Im not sure about you but I take the AMD slides as an approximation of the actual performance, and not reality until I see reviews and testing, if you don't mind 

You can read that as bias or you could verify it yourself


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> The key to his statements (which are fully correct, mind) is _timing _and _time to market._



I said that may times and it collaborates about what lisa said on the stand, "We have made big bets 3 to 5 years ago and now we will see the rewards".


----------



## kings (Jun 11, 2019)

Nvidia introduces the RTX 2060 at $350 and a half the internet has a meltdown. "A mid-end card shouldn't cost more than $250, what a greedy basterds".

AMD introduces RX5700 at $379, "oh, look, what a lovely mid-end card, greetings to AMD".


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 11, 2019)

Metroid said:


> I'm very impressed by Navi, polaris rx 480 was never even close to 1070.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, gtx1070 was strip down gp104 and RTX 2070 is full tu106. As if nvidia could have been able use 7nm process for Turings at the release time instead of 12nm, rtx2070 would most likely to been strip down tu104. Not taking anything away from Navi though. Nvidia huge advantage on FPS/TFlops over AMD have seemingly decreased a lot, which is the most important thing on the whole release. 

I'm really looking forward for mobile navi lineup, should suit there very well. And won't be that far of even on very much power restricted mobile rtx 2080s.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Nvidia introduces the RTX 2060 at $350 and a half the internet has a meltdown. "A mid-end card shouldn't cost more than $250, what a greedy basterds".
> 
> AMD introduces RX5700 at $379, "oh, look, what a lovely mid-end card, greetings to AMD".



pretty sure you will find everyone is not too happy about these price points actually soooo yeah.
I mean it makes sense, Nvidia sets the trend, set the price, AMD brings out a better card and thus prices it a bit higher.

But if AMD had some guts they would actually price it below the 2060 and make it a no brainer sale and make the fans happy.
300 dollars would be great, still too expensive for a mid range imo, but good considering the times.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 11, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Fury was less future proof (4GB) and a worse performer than 980ti. Today the latter runs circles around the former.


Haha, kind of... not, Fury X beats 980Ti, if we trust TPU





So, why are your impressions so wrong? 



Vayra86 said:


> Polaris gave us Maxwell performance in the midrange a *full generation later*


That's apparently wrong. Fury X beat 980Ti at 4k, later on (see above) at lower resolution too.
Even at day one it was trading blows.

BIgger Polaris had never happened, because AMD apparently couldn't afford major effort on Zen and multiple GPU projects in parallel.



Vayra86 said:


> The midrange is irrelevant when it comes to analyzing progress between generations.


In pathetic Nvidia Fermi era, AMD didn't go for "biggest chip eva" either.

You would have a point, if next gen would give significant perf/$ improvements. But last 2 gens from NV didn't do that.
Hence "but we could have had that stuff for that money years ago" argument is moot.
Of course you could.
We also used to live in times when +40% bump gen over gen in GPU business was meh. 


A true, real "years behind" example would be AMD Buldozer vs Intel Cores. AMD had nothing to counter it for years.

Polaris comparison to 1080 is apples to oranges. Polaris chips were 1.5+ times smaller. Polaris competitors were 1050/1050Ti/1060.

And as VII was mentioned, AMD apparently doesn't feel comfortable not having competitors to NV's x80 series. (Perhaps that's why Raja had to come with ridiculous "but you can crossfire two RX 480".)


----------



## Grog6 (Jun 11, 2019)

I'd like to see benchmarking include ALL the fixes, OS and Firmware, for the various vulnerabilities, so there can be a real comparison.

The fact that most reviews gloss over those is pretty telling, in my book.

Add all the fixes, for both vendors, and see where it falls.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 11, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> I want to see it on custom liquid, not on LN2 etc.



I think as 3950x will only be released now in september due to validation, yields will get better and we might see a major improvement in overclocking, 5ghz 4 cores in water might be possible. This chip they used ln2 was probably an early engineering sample so this was not meant to be overclocked like those pro overclockers wanted to.


----------



## sutyi (Jun 11, 2019)

kings said:


> Nvidia introduces the RTX 2060 at $350 and a half the internet has a meltdown. "A mid-end card shouldn't cost more than $250, what a greedy basterds".
> 
> AMD introduces RX5700 at $379, "oh, look, what a lovely mid-end card, greetings to AMD".



Navi launch prices are just as bad as Turing is / was.

nVIDIA set up new bars on the prices and people jumped it, so AMD is just trying to paddle quietly behind the wake of nVIDIAs expensive RT BS.
_{That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if  it pays off}_

Back to matter at hand and sitting on an almost 3 year GTX 1060 6GB, I do not see a viable upgrade path right now.

GTX 1660 & 1660 Ti - not really a worth while upgrade.
RTX 2060 - too expensive for a card with 6GB of VRAM.
RTX 2070 - price is not compatible with my wallet, also only 15% above a 2060 while being almost 40% more expensive... ehh.
Vega 56 - terrible perf / W, but almost the same performance as an RX 5700, probably would need new PSU.
Vega 64 - horrible perf / W, probably near the same performance as an RX 5700,  definitely would need new PSU.
RX 5700 - AIB partner cards probably at 399-419USD mark. Barely faster compared even compared to a Vega 56.
RX 5700XT - AIB partner card probably at 499-519USD making it effectively RTX 2070 money.

The price per performance ratio of GPUs had crawled to a stop at 2016 levels at that is just sad. What is even more sad, that were nearing or might have even arrived to the point where a midrange GPU costs as much a whole console system. At this rate I'll pick up a PS5 or next-gen Xbox sooner then a freaking new graphics card for Pete's sake...


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 11, 2019)

The Vegas are not that bad with the latest drivers. I'm seeing under 200W playing DOOM at 1440p/60 - total system power of under 200W that is (2700x with PBO off as it's broken in the current BIOS).

You can get a V56 for about €300.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 12, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> You can get a V56 for about €300.



250 at the moment (insane prices):








sutyi said:


> RX 5700 - AIB partner cards probably at 399-419USD mark. Barely faster compared even compared to a Vega 56.


TPU shows 2060 beating even Vega 64.
And this is 5700 vs 2060:





I'd call 25% quite a bit faster than Vega 56.
It is basically about double the 1060 6Gb performance.

But then, V56 prices are insane at the moment.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 12, 2019)

What site is that? Caseking?


----------



## medi01 (Jun 12, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> What site is that? Caseking?


Mindfactory. But I'd doubt this pricing to be unique to them.


----------



## kings (Jun 12, 2019)

sutyi said:


> Navi launch prices are just as bad as Turing is / was.



And yet, only Nvidia is milking, only Nvidia are basterds, only Nvidia is greedy...

The RTX launch was a shitstorm because of the prices (and I agree with the criticism), now AMD does the same and people here are praising the cards! Go figure...

The price is not Nvidia´s fault, AMD is pricing the cards like that because they want to, the rest are just excuses!

Don´t get me wrong, I'm not defending Nvidia, I just can´t understand this double standards.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 12, 2019)

Well they do need to get revenue in and if they see people being happy to pay more, why should they lose out and not have some?  There is also the silly perception that some people have,  that you get more if you pay more, this is not always the case, look at RX570 vs the competition for an example.

The double standard is actually people being happy to pay more for the same or less from NV and holding AMD to a lower price point.

So if people have put themselves in this situation due to buying NVs stuff, why should AMD miss out on more margin?

They also have room to lower prices later too.

As it happens "Moore's law is dead" (YT) has some similar thoughts in a recent video, it might be worth a listen.


----------



## john_ (Jun 13, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Do we have a choice? Where is the competition? In fact, this is getting true for more and more markets, where companies are consolidated on almost a weekly basis for billions of dollars.
> This is unfortunately the world we're living in at the moment. A lot of innovation disappears before it even becomes a real product.
> Here's a great example of a company that was bought out and disappeared before there was even a product
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/2752
> ...



I don't have high hopes for Intel. Intel is a premium brand and I find it difficult to see them coming out with a lower priced product. Of course Koduri is there and he could manage to pass his opinion, but Intel's mentality is stuck as the premium player in the market and it will be tough for him.

Also I don't expect the first ultra duper super(if we get something like that) GPUs from Intel to target gamers. I am expecting really strong products in compute that will be failing behind in gaming. Intel will also have to fight the fact that every game out there is optimized for Nvidia and AMD architectures, a problem that AMD was facing all the time before the consoles and it wasn't only affecting performance, but also compatibility with many games. AMD had to get both major consoles to see programmers optimizing for it's architecture and writing games that will not be incompatible with it's cards in their original versions. Intel will have to face that also.

As for AMD, it doesn't have the money for a high end GPU right now. It keeps depending on GCN because that architecture can still be extremelly capable in compute, while throwing all resources on CPUs. Also a high end GPU is a bet that will probably NOT return it's R&D money. Even if a new AMD high end GPU comes out and beats Nvidia's GPU, Nvidia is too strong as a brand. We can see this in the low-mid range market, where a better RX 570 is losing in sales from worst cards like GTX 1650 and GTX 1050 Ti.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 13, 2019)

john_ said:


> I don't have high hopes for Intel. Intel is a premium brand and I find it difficult to see them coming out with a lower priced product. Of course Koduri is there and he could manage to pass his opinion, but Intel's mentality is stuck as the premium player in the market and it will be tough for him.
> 
> Also I don't expect the first ultra duper super(if we get something like that) GPUs from Intel to target gamers. I am expecting really strong products in compute that will be failing behind in gaming. Intel will also have to fight the fact that every game out there is optimized for Nvidia and AMD architectures, a problem that AMD was facing all the time before the consoles and it wasn't only affecting performance, but also compatibility with many games. AMD had to get both major consoles to see programmers optimizing for it's architecture and writing games that will not be incompatible with it's cards in their original versions. Intel will have to face that also.
> 
> As for AMD, it doesn't have the money for a high end GPU right now. It keeps depending on GCN because that architecture can still be extremelly capable in compute, while throwing all resources on CPUs. Also a high end GPU is a bet that will probably NOT return it's R&D money. Even if a new AMD high end GPU comes out and beats Nvidia's GPU, Nvidia is too strong as a brand. We can see this in the low-mid range market, where a better RX 570 is losing in sales from worst cards like GTX 1650 and GTX 1050 Ti.



I think Intel has been pretty clear that their first product will be a mid-range card. My hopes are not so much on Intel, more on the fact that we'll have a third GPU maker in the market which might cause some changes in the market. 

Games seems to be mainly optimised for Nvidia, not so much for AMD, but it'll be an interesting situation for Intel to be in, considering they've been more than comfortable and used to the fact that most software is optimised for their CPUs.

The "rumour" seems to be that AMD is heading down the chiplet route for GPUs, let's see how that plays out. It could be the way they can get competitive on the higher-end of the market.

You're partially right, a high-end consumer GPU isn't going to be a good return on investment, but when it can also be used for high performance computing and other niche markets where a much higher price per card can be charged, which is how you get your investment back. 

AMD managed to get a bad reputation at some point, not sure when this happened, but it feels like it's undeservedly so, but maybe things will start to change with their CPUs now being competitive.


----------



## Turmania (Jun 16, 2019)

Congratulations AMD you finally caught up with the help of die shrink in both fronts. Enjoy it as half a year later when others go for die shrink gap will be even bigger than it was!


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 16, 2019)

Stop trolling. You do know Zen 3 and better processes are also coming to AMD next year, right?


----------



## Turmania (Jun 16, 2019)

Obviously you have no idea of what trolling is. The numbers show they are on equal terms now. The conclusion is they have just caught up to yesterdays technology, with current technology. they used ther die shrink card from now on they can just improve single digit percentages where as others have a huge improvement gap. sad but true.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 16, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Congratulations AMD you finally caught up with the help of die shrink in both fronts. Enjoy it as half a year later when others go for die shrink gap will be even bigger than it was!


Wow, so much salt.

For starters, they "caught up" with half a chip size (5700XT is 250mm^2, 2070 is 450mm^2).
On top of it, Huang complained that 7nm "is expensive", so hardly anything coming within next 6 month.
What is likely to come within 6 month  is ngreedia's "super" bump and AMD's bigger Navi that could step well into 2080 area.


----------



## londiste (Jun 16, 2019)

medi01 said:


> For starters, they "caught up" with half a chip size (5700XT is 250mm^2, 2070 is 450mm^2).
> On top of it, Huang complained that 7nm "is expensive", so hardly anything coming within next 6 month.


10.3 billion transistors vs 10.8 billion transistors.
What 7nm gives over 12nm is 70-80% better transistor density, a 450mm^2 chip at 12nm would become 250mm^2 at 7nm. In December 2017 AMD stated 7nm was twice as expensive as 14/12nm, negating the effect of smaller die size.
The other big win from a smaller manufacturing process is better power efficiency and lower voltage accompanied by lower power consumption.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jun 17, 2019)

There is much more to it than just the node shrink though. Both Zen 2 and Navi are very different architecturally.

There is also a lot of room to grow performance for Zen3/Navi 2.0.

I think people will be surprised by how much more of a gain they can produce and I think it is a bit "cheeky" (I'm purposely not using the other word to avoid "reactions") to be making absolute statements that there is nothing more here (and in the future) other than node gains and that they will be behind in 6 months and other salty comments.

On top of that, there is actually a good pipeline of process improvements coming too.


----------



## john_ (Jun 17, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Congratulations AMD you finally caught up with 1/10 or 1/50 of the R&D budget, only a small team of engineers, no room for mistakes and while also trying to hold your market share against Nvidia in the graphics market. Enjoy it as long as it lasts, you and your customers, while I will keep waiting and hoping for Intel to make those 10nm a viable manufacturing process.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 17, 2019)

londiste said:


> In December 2017 AMD stated 7nm was twice as expensive as 14/12nm, negating the effect of smaller die size.


That was comparing 250mm^2 14nm chip against 250mm^2 7nm chip.
But 450mm^2 14nm chip must cost more than twice more than 250mm^2 14nm chip.

AMD should have no problem beating 2070/2060 on price.


----------



## londiste (Jun 17, 2019)

john_ said:


> > Congratulations AMD you finally caught up with 1/10 or 1/50 of the R&D budget, only a small team of engineers, no room for mistakes and while also trying to hold your market share against Nvidia in the graphics market. Enjoy it as long as it lasts, you and your customers, while I will keep waiting and hoping for Intel to make those 10nm a viable manufacturing process.
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you.


What are you comparing AMD R&D budget with?
The exact division of R&D costs for all involved companies are unknown.

Nvidia outspends AMD by about 50% as a whole, it could be estimated 4-5 times for GPU division but whether that is true is debatable.

Intel outspends AMD about 10-fold for company as a whole but keep in mind that Intel does a lot more than AMD and some of these things are really expensive. Intel spends billions on foundries - TSMC is their main competitor in that field and TSMC should be a larger manufacturer than Intel is (and if I remember correctly Intel puts new fabs cost in R&D while TSMC does not). They work together with Micron on NAND/Optane/SSDs and Micron spends couple billion a year on R&D. There are more fields Intel competes in with further R&D costs and while they definitely have more to spend on CPU R&D the difference there is definitely not 10-fold but much less.

AMD spent about $1.5B in R&D in 2018.
Intel spent $13.5B, Nvidia spent $2.3B, TSMC spent $2.6B, Micron spent $2.3B.



medi01 said:


> That was comparing 250mm^2 14nm chip against 250mm^2 7nm chip.
> But 450mm^2 14nm chip must cost more than twice more than 250mm^2 14nm chip.


The problem is that we do not know how things stand right now.
I would expect 7nm cost to have been gone down but how much exactly we do not know. Pretty sure it is not even close to 12nm yet.
12nm is old, tried and true manufacturing process while 7nm is a new one. The yield dropoff with size increase is definitely much lower at 12nm and can be negligible at 450mm^2.

Related to this, one has to wonder why does Nvidia stay at 12nm? Their GPUs are power limited, the same as AMD's. Clocks for Nvidia GPUs are stuck at 2-2.1GHz on 12nm because we know after that point the power efficiency goes straight to hell. AMD is showing us that 2.0-2.1 is achievable on 7nm so that cannot be the problem. Yields and cost remain the main suspects here.


----------

