# AMD Computex 2019 Lisa Su CEO Keynote: Live Blog



## btarunr (May 27, 2019)

AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su is heading the opening Keynote at the 2019 Computex trade-show in Taipei. Her company is on the inflection point of new product-lines, namely the 3rd generation Ryzen desktop processors, 2nd generation EPYC, and Radeon Navi graphics cards. This post serves as our Live Blog of the event.



 

2:17 AM (UTC): Dr. Su takes centerstage as Computex CEO Walter Yeh welcomes and introduces her.





 

 

"We want our devices to understand what we want."

2:25 AM (UTC): Dr. Su sets the stage for "Zen 2" CPU core and "Navi" GPU technology reveal. 





2:30 AM (UTC): Dr. Su announces Azure Cloud expansion for up to 11,500 cores.



 

2:32 AM (UTC): AMD updates development of EPYC "Rome" 64-core enterprise processor, with a performance benchmark, showing a 2P "Rome" system outperforming a 2P Intel "Cascade Lake" system. AMD announced a Q3-2019 launch for EPYC "Rome."





2:35 AM (UTC): AMD is unveiling the Radeon Navi GPU.

2:39 AM: Next-generation Sony PlayStation powered by AMD Navi and Ryzen CPU.





2:40 AM: Navi based on new RDNA architecture that is NOT GCN! RDNA is a clean-slate GPU design that is not based on Graphics CoreNext.



 



2:44: 1.25x IPC increase over Vega SIMD core

AMD announced Radeon RX 5000 series based on "Navi" in honor of AMD 50th Anniversary:



 



Radeon RX 5700 beats NVIDIA RTX 2070 at "Strange Brigade" by roughly 10 percent. The GPU launches some time in July 2019.



 



3:00 AM UTC: AMD turns its attention to the PC processor family, with an introduction to 2nd generation Ryzen processors driving high-performance notebooks





3:01 AM UTC: ASUS unveils its AMD X570 motherboard family for Ryzen 3000 processors, with up to 30 models in the pipeline. It also unveiled an ROG Strix desktop based on 3rd generation Ryzen processor.





3:03 AM UTC: Acer unveiled a new "beastly" gaming notebook based on 2nd generation Ryzen mobile product.





Acer also unveiled a new Predator desktop featuring 3rd generation Ryzen and Radeon RX 5700 graphics.





3:10 AM UTC: The 3rd generation Ryzen is here!





3:12 AM UTC: Zen 2 cores, AM4 socket, PCIe gen 4.0





3:14 AM: 2x Floating point, 2x cache size, 15% IPC uplift!



 



3:16 AM: Ryzen 7 3700X 8-core/16-thread, 3.60~4.40 GHz clocks, 65W TDP, and 15% performance over 2700X. Significantly (30% faster) than i7-9700K



 



Astounding gaming performance gains over 2700X! Gaming performance beats Core i9-9900K.





3700X + Radeon RX 5700 + X570 is a pure PCIe gen 4.0 platform. PCIe gen 4.0 makes a difference in 3DMark PCIe b/w feature test.



 



3:35 AM UTC: The Ryzen 9 3900X: 12-core/24-thread, up to 4.80 GHz clocks, 72 MB cache. Beats Intel's HEDT 12-core Core i9-9920X processor. 



 



Pricing and product details:





Availability July 7, 2019.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## kid41212003 (May 27, 2019)

Awaiting the juicy news of Navi and the new Ryzen.


----------



## cynic01 (May 27, 2019)

Watching on Youtube right now.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 27, 2019)

live stream here-


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Dr. Lisa Su little evil laugh when comparing EPYC to Intel in the background.  Not sure if disturbing or a funny moment.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Navi 1.25x performance per clock compared to Vega.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 27, 2019)

RX5700  hahahaha


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

So not GCN & redesigned CU, quite a  for armchair experts at home who thought they knew better


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Navi 1.25x performance per clock compared to Vega.



And the RX 5700 seemingly being on par or slightly better than the RTX 2070...
So much for Nvidia trademarking 3080, 4080 and 5080...


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And the RX 5700 seemingly being on par or slightly better than the RTX 2070...
> So much for Nvidia trademarking 3080, 4080 and 5080...



This surprised me, I expected low to midrange card announcement. Obviously Strange Brigade is very AMD friendly but sounded good.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And the RX *5700* seemingly being on par or slightly better than the RTX 2070...
> So much for Nvidia trademarking 3080, 4080 and 5080...


I wonder if this was always on the cards, Evergreen being the last time AMD kicked Nvidia's arse.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> And the RX 5700 seemingly being on par or slightly better than the RTX 2070...
> So much for Nvidia trademarking 3080, 4080 and 5080...


They used Strange Brigade which is literally the best case scenario for Radeons. So depending on the price it'll be either a great product or a turd. If it's true that the 2070 competitor will be $500, I don't see them flying of the shelves.
It all depends on what AMD wants. A quick cash grab or market share. A $500 competitor will not take back market share.


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

5700 series

50xx = 50th Anniversary
x7xx = 7nm

I suspect the rest of the number line up stays the same.


Anyone else get Zootopia flashbacks when they announced Navi is RDNA


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

The speaker from Microsoft just made me think of this


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> The speaker from Microsoft just made me think of this
> 
> View attachment 123811


At least it's not kung fu english from the Asus guy.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 27, 2019)

Starting to sound like my next card could possibly be a 5870 again, oh my.

I'm not likely to buy little er Navi.


----------



## Divide Overflow (May 27, 2019)

Still wait for a W1zzard review.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Starting to sound like my next card could possibly be a 5870 again, oh my.


I think it'll be 57xx, as Xzibit explained above


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

Urgh, I just want Zen II details.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> I think it'll be 57xx, as Xzibit explained above


yeh but Navi20  ,a guy can dream.


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

The Acer guy wants to bone Lisa Su.

So much butt licking


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> Urgh, I just want Zen II details.


Apparently it only clocks to 4.6GHz, so don't get your hopes up. But the IPC looks to be strong.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 27, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Starting to sound like my next card could possibly be a 5870 again, oh my.
> 
> I'm not likely to buy little er Navi.



5780 more likely.  5770 gonna be the 2070 rank.


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Apparently it only clocks to 4.6GHz, so don't get your hopes up. But the IPC looks to be strong.



Don't worry, you can get the 9900KS at 300W for 5 ghz


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Don't worry, you can get the 9900KS at 300W for 5 ghz


And the cheap, cheap price of $700


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

15% IPC increase on Zen. Impressive


----------



## chaosmassive (May 27, 2019)

BIG TURN OFF
why would AMD pit R7 3700X against i7 9700K
EDIT:  nvm, they put their R7 3800X vs i9 9900K
EDIT2: Press F for i9 9920X


----------



## dinmaster (May 27, 2019)

navi is nice but if it doesn't have a version that is better then what nvidia has to offer. it just shows they are not for our best interests and just the interest of being greedy... push tech forward at a higher level. greed slows progress down...


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Shatun_Bear *3.9Ghz base* 

Just 0.1 Ghz left for free 10$


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2019)

Jesus... 22% faster in PUBG says a lot, and i LIKE how my 2700x performs in games


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

The worst kept secret ever Ryzen 9 

*70MB* cache


----------



## Zubasa (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Jesus... 22% faster in PUBG says a lot, and i LIKE how my 2700x performs in games


Yup the last "draw back" on going Ryzen is gone. 
I just hope there are enough spare EPYC for AMD to make another Threadripper.


----------



## Chilby2k (May 27, 2019)

I'm impressed Zen 2 hoping we will be getting a rx 3800 custom type in the Ps5/xbox and not a slow laptop variant like ps4 and xbox one.  DeVs be able hit 60fps more often provided they dont go to crazy with graphics. Also like that it's not GCN something new


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

What's that sound? Oh yeah, that's the sound of Intel's board of directors shitting a brick.


----------



## Zubasa (May 27, 2019)

trparky said:


> What's that sound? Oh yeah, that's the sound of Intel's board of directors shitting a brick.


They are still making record profits, it takes more than this for Intel to truly feel it.
Intel had been in far even worse situation than this.


----------



## Eskimonster (May 27, 2019)

Wow at the 3900x, i want it hard, price gonna be 499$


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

*16 core held back* & TR3 likely delayed till further notice!


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

$500 is cheap....


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Jesus... 22% faster in PUBG says a lot, and i LIKE how my 2700x performs in games


Yup that was my biggest takeaway from this. Looks like they fixed latencies and memory speeds. Along with IPC increase ofc.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 27, 2019)

Don't expect any real benchmarks until launch, as AMD has apparently embargoed their partners from showing anything outside of what AMD has shown at the event.

Looks like their performance ended up better than they expected on the CPUs, so they held back the clocks a bit and increased pricing.
I guess people will still bash all the leakers and say they were wrong and AMD didn't deliver etc.
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed with the pricing as well, but such is life. Do expect more SKUs later in the year though.


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> They are still making record profits, it takes more than this for Intel to truly feel it.
> Intel had been in far even worse situation than this.


That may very well be true but it still doesn't take away from the fact that AMD just handed Intel a massive blow.

This is what all of us have been waiting for.


----------



## KainXS (May 27, 2019)

I'm guessing they did not need the 16 core part with Intels current fails but the 12 core still looks delicious.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

12 cores and not 5 ghz at $499, no 16 cores, milking time for amd, top end navi faster than 2070, pcie4 matters, that is pretty much it.

No single thread performance and when they did a cinebench multithread 3700x 8 cores 16 threads, they poorly x 9700k which is an 8 cores and 8 threads, badly matched, why they did not use the 9900k? price will be their excuse.


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

I currently have a i7 4790k and have been waiting till today to see where I go next. Intel or AMD.

Whilst a lot is subjective and still needs testing I now know I will go AMD. Even just for the future upgrade path as Intel has clearly stalled somewhat in new CPU design. These increases and performance along with cost. I'm certainly happy to go this route. For $500 as well, much cheaper than intel too so $ per performance must be amazing.


----------



## chaosmassive (May 27, 2019)

you know the shit is real deal when AMD start to compete ryzen 3000 with their own previous generation CPU, and only put i7 9700k and i9 9900k as comparison
its mean intel aint worth their precious time on stage and slide anymore


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 27, 2019)

Personally, I'm really liking the look of the 3900x.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 12 cores and not 5 ghz at $499, no 16 cores, milking time for amd


Considering the competition has less cores & less IPC, though higher clocks, I can't see who's AMD milking?


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Same MSRP as 2700X -> 3700X



KainXS said:


> I'm guessing they did not need the 16 core part with Intels current fails but the 12 core still looks delicious.



Remember the Intel Roadmap leaked from Dell presentation only shows Intel moving to a 10c.  Intel has their presentation in 26hrs. We'll see then if anything new is shown.


----------



## erocker (May 27, 2019)

CPU's are impressive! Kind of lost hope in replacing my GTX 1080 with an AMD card this year unfortunately.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Same MSRP as 2700X -> 3700X
> Remember the Intel Roadmap leaked from Dell presentation only shows Intel moving to a 10c.  Intel has their presentation in 26hrs. We'll see then if anything new is shown.



If Intel does not come with a 12  or 16 cores in future amd will be like Intel has been past few years, milking the bullshit. I knew they would back down this time, they have the perfect time to let the hype train die with 12 cores. I would not buy the 16 cores but I really wanted amd to deliver, i guess i was an overhoper fool. TDP review might have been the case here but if that is true then amd will never launch 16 cores on 7nm.


----------



## chaosmassive (May 27, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> Don't worry, you can get the 9900KS at 300W for 5 ghz


I just get FX 9590 flashback, oh god



erocker said:


> CPU's are impressive! Kind of lost hope in replacing my GTX 1080 with an AMD card this year unfortunately.


arent we all excited for AMD CPU only? as its common knowledge that AMD no longer fight Nvidia at flagship grade GPU since RX 400 series


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Considering the competition has less cores & less IPC, though higher clocks, I can't see who's AMD milking?



He's just mad he's bent over for intel all these years and can't handle the AMD value. $850 bucks for 7900x that's going to be rofl stomped vs $500 3900x. He's panicking.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2019)

What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock
Is this just where the power creep sets in (3.5GHz) and it becomes less cost effective to clock up, or is there something else behind the wattage increase? (better turbos, etc)

3700x looks like a low wattage power house for gamers


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2019)

These look to be solid CPUs!

So...... what did Adored say versus what came out?

Is anyone else happy we didn't see a 16c/32t part on mainstream? hehe!


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock
> Is this just where the power creep sets in (3.5GHz) and it becomes less cost effective to clock up, or is there something else behind the wattage increase? (better turbos, etc)
> 
> 3700x looks like a low wattage power house for gamers



For the speed, wattage and price it's s very impressive CPU, if that's their entry level example too, no more 4/6 cores?


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock


Higher base clock & higher all core turbo.


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> These look to be solid CPUs!
> 
> So...... what did Adored say versus what came out?
> 
> Is anyone else happy we didn't see a 16c/32t part on mainstream? hehe!



As mostly a gamer, I don't see what 16c/32t would have offered me, I'm pretty happy with what was announced, I'm sure higher speed chips will come soon ie 3950x etc but not too fussed for the 16c right now.


----------



## ViperXTR (May 27, 2019)

R5 3600 where? My target cpu, hopefullly an RX 5800 as well


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock
> Is this just where the power creep sets in (3.5GHz) and it becomes less cost effective to clock up, or is there something else behind the wattage increase? (better turbos, etc)
> 
> 3700x looks like a low wattage power house for gamers



Probably like the previous gen. All core boost is -200 from single core boost on 2700x and 65W tdp chip only goes to +200 over base.

The ceiling doesn't look great, but it's not that compact. They must be heavily binning, so everything below 3900X has junk dies, but I guess we'll see. AMD notoriously overvolts.


----------



## Zubasa (May 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> These look to be solid CPUs!
> 
> So...... what did Adored say versus what came out?
> 
> Is anyone else happy we didn't see a 16c/32t part on mainstream? hehe!


It is just a matter of time for the 16-cores anyway.


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2019)

oh my my... thank god i bought a crapton of amd stock.




Hellfire said:


> As mostly a gamer, I don't see what 16c/32t would have offered me, I'm pretty happy with what was announced, I'm sure higher speed chips will come soon ie 3950x etc but not too fussed for the 16c right now.



100% agree...  Intel's only advantage right now is clock speed and latency.  AMD has already crushed them in $/multicore performance.


----------



## dicktracy (May 27, 2019)

With the core-to-price bracket remaining the same, there's really no hope for a 64 cores Threadripper.


----------



## Wavetrex (May 27, 2019)

That price per core of the 12-core is great !

Not 5 Ghz like some people have "predicted", but still dam' close ... 4.6 is not bad at all!
What a monster of a CPU, for the same introductory price as the 1800X just 2 years ago.

100% getting one + X570 + some future PCI-e 4 NVME SSD !


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

AMD had the perfect time, perfect reason, 50 years, back on track after so many years behind. AMD had everything and yet they preferred to kill the hype train while they could hehe

I will still buy the 12 cores as I planned few months ago, even though I will have to pay $170 more for the 12 cores.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

I wonder if there'd be *non X *variants on Ryzen 9 or low(er) power versions 


Metroid said:


> AMD had the perfect time, perfect reason, 50 years, back on track after so many years behind. AMD had everything and yet they preferred to kill the hype train while they could hehe


You do realize they do have Rzyen 2xxx & TR2 to sell right


----------



## Fatalfury (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock
> Is this just where the power creep sets in (3.5GHz) and it becomes less cost effective to clock up, or is there something else behind the wattage increase? (better turbos, etc)
> 
> 3700x looks like a low wattage power house for gamers



Real world TDP will be higher.. 65w does not mean exactly it.. 
Probably  Ryzen 3500 may be 65w


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> For the speed, wattage and price it's s very impressive CPU, if that's their entry level example too, no more 4/6 cores?



Remember the Zen+ 5 series came out later as well as the B450 boards. I'm guessing a Quarter apart.  July 7 if friendly to Back to School and 5 series/550 might be released by Holiday Season.


----------



## L|NK|N (May 27, 2019)

AMD be like:


----------



## Zubasa (May 27, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> With the core-to-price bracket remaining the same, there's really no hope for a 64 cores Threadripper.


First of all M$ Windows needs to not spontaneously combust with that many cores and threads.



phanbuey said:


> Did anyone else notice the absolutely insane amount of cache on the 3900x?
> 
> that should be a BEAST in games.


Every Zen2 CCX has double the L3 cache compare to Zen/+, the 3900X has access to the full amount of L3 on those dies.


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2019)

Did anyone else notice the absolutely insane amount of cache on the 3900x?  

that should be a BEAST in games.


----------



## Fatalfury (May 27, 2019)

if they show flagships at computex that means Rx 5700 is the best?? ..


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

so the rumors were indeed lies, no 5ghz boost. 

I bet overclocked 9700k still beats AMD at 1080p sadly... not that it matters, but just sad... I was hoping for bigger performance jump this round. silicon is just a dying beast is all there is to it.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (May 27, 2019)

Come on Intel, now you need to push AMD to release their 16 core Ryzen!


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I bet overclocked 9700k still beats AMD at 1080p sadly... not that it matters, but just sad... I was hoping for bigger performance jump this round. silicon is just a dying beast is all there is to it.


15% IPC increase is notable, considering.



yakk said:


> Come on Intel, now you need to push AMD to release their 16 core Ryzen!


LOL, pound sand. Nobody wants that on the mainstream!!!


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2019)

yakk said:


> Come on Intel, now you need to push AMD to release their 16 core Ryzen!


80 MB cache 16 core/32 @ 130W  :{}

They better do something, they are in trouble lol.



EarthDog said:


> 15% IPC increase is notable, considering.
> 
> LOL, piss off. Nobody wants that on the mainstream!!!



NO ONE NEEDS MOAR THAN 640K! 



lynx29 said:


> so the rumors were indeed lies, no 5ghz boost.
> 
> I bet overclocked 9700k still beats AMD at 1080p sadly... not that it matters, but just sad... I was hoping for bigger performance jump this round. silicon is just a dying beast is all there is to it.



I think you're really underestimating the amount Cache plays into games.  These chips are going to be buttery.


----------



## fizhsmile (May 27, 2019)

Ohoho Im soo exited with this announcement. My old 3770k & RX480 already served me well. My wallet is ready


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> so the rumors were indeed lies, no 5ghz boost.
> 
> I bet overclocked 9700k still beats AMD at 1080p sadly... not that it matters, but just sad... I was hoping for bigger performance jump this round. silicon is just a dying beast is all there is to it.



There were no lies, those leaks were Engineering Samples chips. That was an unfair demo, pairing 9700k x 3700x was terrible.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 27, 2019)

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be  the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> There were no lies, those leaks were Engineering Samples chips. That was an unfair demo, pairing 9700k x 3700x was terrible.



9700k is $400....more than fair, plus it consumes twice the power.

I thought AMD would go cheaper to really undercut, but it looks like Lisa has had enough of that shit.


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be  the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think



that's basically the current cap for SK-x basin falls using conventional cooling.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2019)

Fatalfury said:


> Real world TDP will be higher.. 65w does not mean exactly it..
> Probably  Ryzen 3500 may be 65w



If i'm sidegrading from a 2700x (105W) to a 3700x (65W), both measured by AMD's standards i know i'm in for a big drop in wattages and temps, and i'm frigging excited for that


----------



## xkm1948 (May 27, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> that's basically the current cap for SK-x basin falls using conventional cooling.



I just want a 20+ core TR3 to replace my X99.........


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> 9700k is $400....more than fair, plus it consumes twice the power.



It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.



I'm pretty sure the point is that intel just disabled HT and still charges you an arm and a leg. Every comment on this sounds like it comes from salty intel 8 core owners.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.


The 9900k would likely beat the 3700x but be beaten by 3800x as well, they've positioned Ryzen 7 vs i7 & Ryzen 9 vs i9 ~ fairly self explanatory.


----------



## HwGeek (May 27, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be  the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think


Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.


They compared the 3800X core wise with the 9900K. It's not AMD's fault Intel decided to disable HT on a product 3700X is competing with.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> The 9900k would likely beat the 3700x but be beaten by 3800x as well, they've positioned Ryzen 7 vs i7 & Ryzen 9 vs i9 ~ fairly self explanatory.



9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## GoldenX (May 27, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,


Meh, Phenom II saw Nforce 4 65w only boards and no one complained, same with the last years of 775.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Like I said they've positioned the i9 vs Ryzen 9, that's the only thing I can come up with. Though 8c/8t vs 8c/16t was otherwise unfair.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> They compared the 3800X core wise with the 9900K. It's not AMD's fault Intel decided to disable HT on a product 3700X is competing with.



Oh yeah in gaming with a variable fps, that was another fail, I wanted a single or multithread benchmark apples to apples and that did only happen on the 12 cores. 3900x x 9920 and plus ryzen had a 200mhs difference. 4.4 x 4.6, but in all fairness this was much more fair than 8 threads to 16 threads, even though it had 200mhs more for 3900x.


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Meh, Phenom II saw Nforce 4 65w only boards and no one complained, same with the last years of 775.


Those boards were notoriously crap tho... I used to hate them (775).






Used to have to do that or the OC would be unstable


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## Wavetrex (May 27, 2019)

When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.

So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an *i7*


----------



## EatingDirt (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.


That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Oh yeah in gaming with a variable fps, that was another fail, *I wanted* a single or multithread benchmark apples to apples and that did only happen on the 12 cores. 3900x x 9920.


Maybe the should have done a full 30 page review. Go on for about 40 minutes... Just because YOU wanted it...


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Like I said they've positioned the i9 vs Ryzen 9, that's the only thing I can come up with. Though 8c/8t vs 8c/16t was otherwise unfair.



Price segment both are MSRP $399.  Give Intel a month to lower prices to clear inventory, Such a nice gesture.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Like I said in the other thread, *Intel doesn't lower prices*. Call it ego or whatever but they won't do so & frankly don't need to, considering they still have the *OC headroom*.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
> If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.
> 
> So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
> It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an *i7*



Remember that is amd is on the attack here, late in the game, not intel and its price, amd is trying to price its price based on the competition had for some months. Blame amd not intel.



EatingDirt said:


> That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.



As per my previous post, amd set that price now, intel had its price for a long time. Like I said before, Intel will set the 9700k much lower as amd launches the 3700x and then you trolls will say, intel was not fair hehe and amd will not move the price and you trolls will cry about it.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Remember that is amd is on the attack here, late in the game, not intel and its price, amd is trying to price its price based on the competition had for some months. Blame amd not intel.


Frankly it's the buyers that need to be blamed, many of them want AMD to lower prices just so they can get cheaper Intel or Nvidia products. We've seen it time & again, AMD is not a charity!


----------



## TheGuruStud (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Remember that is amd is on the attack here, late in the game, not intel and its price, amd is trying to price its price based on the competition had for some months. Blame amd not intel.
> 
> 
> 
> As per my previous post, amd set that price now, intel had its price for a long time. Like I said before, Intel will set the 9700k much lower as amd launches the 3700x and then you trolls will say, intel was not fair hehe and amd will not move the price and you trolls will cry about it.



This is wccftech level shilling. Very poor quality. Try with a new account, please.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Frankly it's the buyers that need to be blamed, many of them want AMD to lower prices just so they can get cheaper Intel or Nvidia products. We've seen it time & again, AMD is not a charity!



Oh yeah, I'm happy that you realize amd is not for charity work, as i said before intel will lower 9700k a lot to look much more attractive and amd will have nothing to compare the 3700x at $329 hehe


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Like I said in the other thread, *Intel doesn't lower prices*. Call it ego or whatever but they won't do so & frankly don't need to, considering they still have the *OC headroom*.


Of course, it's their decision. But AMD was already taking away market share with Ryzen 2000 against a Intel 9000 and 8000 series. Do you think it will not happen with 3000 as well. Especially now that the margin has decreased. So they either lower prices or lose even more.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> This is wccftech level shilling. Very poor quality. Try with a new account, please.



I see a pretty good debate, sorry i disappointed you.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

You wanna bet on Intel lowering their price? Be my guest, they'll just kill the 9700k instead & replace it with a higher tier/clocked SKU.


ShurikN said:


> Of course, it's their decision. But AMD was already taking away market share with Ryzen 2000 against a Intel 9000 and 8000 series. Do you think it will not happen with 3000 as well. Especially now that the margin has decreased. So they either lower prices or lose even more.


DIY market doesn't even come close to the OEM+notebook sales Intel slurps. The thing is they make insane margins on many of these chips, so while they *might* lower the prices frankly IMO they'll continue with the *higher margins* instead.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> What stands out to me is the wattage difference from 3700x to 3800x, 65W to 105W for only 300Mhz more base clock
> Is this just where the power creep sets in (3.5GHz) and it becomes less cost effective to clock up, or is there something else behind the wattage increase? (better turbos, etc)
> 
> 3700x looks like a low wattage power house for gamers



Or it's possible this is because they put in enough real TDP overclocking headroom? 
I guess we'll see when the reviews are out.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> You wanna bet on Intel lowering their price? Be my guest, they'll just kill the 9700k instead & replace it with a higher tier/clocked SKU.



Intel is almost done with smt, too many flaws with it, mitigation after mitigation. 9700k might be the start of an only real core cpus but at same time amd is full force with smt. Intel can lower prices, their margins are much much higher than amd. 9900k is fail in my book.


----------



## Wavetrex (May 27, 2019)

My guess is that anyone who wanted an 9700K or 9900K already got one.
Everyone else was just waiting to see what AMD has to offer, and it's pretty clear by now that in a month and a bit their offer will be better in all metrics - price, performance, power.

Zen+ is only 5-7% lower IPC than Coffee Lake, and with 15% improvement Zen 2 will be 8-10% faster.
4.6Ghz + 10% = "5.06" ... so Intel's "5 Ghz advantage" is basically nullified.

And I'm quite convinced it will be possible to squeeze 150 to 200 Mhz using High-end water cooling from these 7nm chips, putting them FIRMLY in the lead against Intel price equivalents.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Intel is almost done with smt, too many flaws with it, mitigation after mitigation. 9700k might be the start of an only real core cpus but at same time amd is full force with smt. Intel can lower prices, their margins are much much higher than amd.



Yeah right, now you're talking out of your donkey...
SMT is not going anywhere, regardless what you dream up...


----------



## EatingDirt (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> As per my previous post, amd set that price now, intel had its price for a long time. Like I said before, Intel will set the 9700k much lower as amd launches the 3700x and then you trolls will say, intel was not fair hehe and amd will not move the price and you trolls will cry about it.



How much do you really think they'll reduce the price of the 9700k? It's currently *$70 *_higher _than the 3700X. If they reduce it anywhere lower than the 3700X they'll have a gigantic pricing hole they'll need to fill with an entirely new 9800k 8/16 CPU. Not to mention by  that logic they'll also be forced to reduce the price of the 9900k *$100 *to the 3800X's price point.

For some perspective on how much intel has 'reduced' their prices: the MSRP of the 8700k at launch was $359. You can currently get it for $349, $10 less than MSRP.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yeah right, now you're talking out of your donkey...
> SMT is not going anywhere, regardless what you dream up...



It's where the market will be going weather you like or not.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Intel can lower prices, their margins are much much higher than amd.


Yes they can but will they? Their margins were already down last quarter & they're facing huge pressure in the server segment, they'll discount *Xeons* first because they need to. In consumer space I expect less than 1% chance of them doing so.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

EatingDirt said:


> How much do you really think they'll reduce the price of the 9700k? It's currently *$70 *_higher _than the 3700X. If they reduce it anywhere lower than the 3700X they'll have a gigantic pricing hole they'll need to fill with an entirely new 9800k 8/16 CPU. Not to mention by  that logic they'll also be forced to reduce the price of the 9900k *$100 *to the 3800X's price point.
> 
> For some perspective on how much intel has 'reduced' their prices: the MSRP of the 8700k at launch was $359. You can currently get it for $349, $10 less than MSRP.



9700k for $400 makes no sense anymore after july, so they will drop it lower, i believe $260 if 3700x is faster in single thread which at this time we have no idea about it, if not then intel will match it, $329 and you will have the option to choose single thread or multithread.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> I see a pretty good debate, sorry i disappointed you.



intel fanboism is always disappointing to read. spin away.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Yes they can but will they? Their margins were already down last quarter & they're facing huge pressure in the server segment, they'll discount *Xeons* first because they need to. In consumer space I expect less than 1% chance of them doing so.



Intel is known to be unfair x anything that stands their way. They only lower prices if they have to, past 13 years intel has been milking and in few cases lowered prices only when they had to.



DeathtoGnomes said:


> intel fanboism is always disappointing to read. spin away.



I dont think you read the whole thread, i will buy the 3900x. What I was against amd did today was, they tested apples x oranges and that i hate the most, they wanted to show an advantage that they might not have been if it was 16 threads x 16 threads in multithread cinebench.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> They only lower prices if they have to, past 13 years intel has been milking and in few cases lowered prices only when they had to.


And they still don't need to, they have the mind-share & the market-share although it's rapidly shrinking in the DIY space. You know what'll be a *killer CPU* ~ an 8 core *APU with Navi* graphics, that'll kill 90% of all their current SKU under 9900k if priced right!


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Full stack for the 7.7. launch





Also:


----------



## EatingDirt (May 27, 2019)

Metroid said:


> 9700k for $400 makes no sense anymore after july, so they will drop it lower, i believe $260 if 3700x is faster in single thread which at this time we have no idea about it, if not then intel will match it, $329 and you will have the option to choose single thread or multithread.


You think they'll reduce the price of the 9700k by *$140* and the 9900k by... *$170*? Did you not read what I said about the 8700k? Almost 2 years, *$10* less than release MSRP.

Regardless of all that, at current intel prices, the original point stands, 3700x vs 9700k is a legitimate comparison because of the prices of both. Saying "but intel will drop prices" isn't relevant. You compare what things are like _now, _not what they may or may not be like in the future.


----------



## Vycyous (May 27, 2019)

Here is the full lineup, as of now, posted on AMD's website. Did I miss the part about Ryzen 5?



			https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors/11781,11756,11761,11766,11771
		






Continued...


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Vycyous said:


> Here is the full lineup, as of now, posted on AMD's website. Did I miss the part about Ryzen 5?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



3700X with a cooler and RGB for Just $329. OMG!!!


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

EatingDirt said:


> You think they'll reduce the price of the 9700k by *$140* and the 9900k by... *$170*? Did you not read what I said about the 8700k? Almost 2 years, *$10* less than release MSRP.
> 
> Regardless of all that, at current intel prices, the original point stands, 3700x vs 9700k is a legitimate comparison because of the prices of both. Saying "but intel will drop prices" isn't relevant. You compare what things are like _now, _not what they may or may not be like in the future.



Intel is losing the game if all amd is showing and saying turns out to be right 7th july. Intel will eol many and price match the competition just like amd does.



> 3700x vs 9700k is a legitimate comparison



I disagree with that, like i said before price wise yes but not apples x apples comparison.



ShurikN said:


> Full stack for the 7.7. launch
> View attachment 123819
> 
> 
> ...



AMD's benchmark is like when intel does the benchmark, all flawed to begin with. I would wait reviews to determine if ryzen 3000 is indeed faster on single thread performance. I see only assumptions from amd at this time with these images. Regarding multithread yes I do believe ryzen will be faster because even ryzen 2000 was faster than intel on multithread, and why ryzen 3000 would not be? i really dont see why. I wanted to see single thread performance in the event, I guess amd left us in the dark on that. AMD published single thread performance but I cant really take those self made benchmark as real/true just yet.


----------



## Vycyous (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Full stack for the 7.7. launch
> View attachment 123819
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure how Anandtech doesn't know the supported memory specs; it's posted right on AMD's website.


----------



## Metroid (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> And they still don't need to, they have the mind-share & the market-share although it's rapidly shrinking in the DIY space. You know what'll be a *killer CPU* ~ an 8 core *APU with Navi* graphics, that'll kill 90% of all their current SKU under 9900k if priced right!



Well, I'm not into apu, I myself think that graphics on the top end cpus are a waste of space, they could add more cache or something more. Cache is expensive and it turns the cpu big but as top end amd cpus dont use igpus then i see no issue. The cost is justified, a behemot 70mb for the 3900x.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Vycyous said:


> Not sure how Anandtech doesn't know the supported memory specs; it's posted right on AMD's website.


Maybe it wasnt up on AMD's site when Anandtech published the article.


----------



## Vycyous (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Maybe it wasnt up on AMD's site when Anandtech published the article.



Most likely. I'm sure they'll update the chart before too long.


----------



## ShurikN (May 27, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> 3700X with a cooler and RGB for Just $329. OMG!!!


Looks like the cpu I'll be getting next year.
Navi on the other hand looks questionable. All comes down to pricing. At least we don't have to wait long. E3 is just around the corner.


----------



## Countryside (May 27, 2019)

I would like to see some matx x570 boards.


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Countryside said:


> I would like to see some matx x570 boards.



Here are the MSI boards but no mATX


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> 15% IPC increase is notable, considering.
> 
> LOL, pound sand. Nobody wants that on the mainstream!!!




I'll wait for benches, 5ghz Intel 9700k prob still beats all the new AMD chips at single core game 1080p min and max fps... and that is just sad to me... I know it doesn't matter for most of us, not even me as I game at 1440p and the results then become more even, and probably AMD wins this time finally, but I was just hoping for more progress is all.


----------



## Countryside (May 27, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Here are the MSI boards but no mATX



Yeah already watched it,  i would like to see something like ASrock x570m pro4


----------



## 95Viper (May 27, 2019)

Stay on topic.
Take individual conflicts to PM if you want to discuss them.
Stay civil to each other.

Thank You and Have a Good Discussion.


----------



## Athlonite (May 27, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> I think it'll be 57xx, as Xzibit explained above



Wait what a 5770 I have two of those sitting here right now


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Athlonite said:


> Wait what a 5770 I have two of those sitting here right now



Bet they are HDs not RXs


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yeah right, now you're talking out of your donkey...


What do you expect from an Intel fanboy? The guy is showing all the classic signs of an Intel fanboy.


lynx29 said:


> I'll wait for benches, 5ghz Intel 9700k prob still beats all the new AMD chips at single core game 1080p min and max fps... and that is just sad to me... I know it doesn't matter for most of us, not even me as I game at 1440p and the results then become more even, and probably AMD wins this time finally, but I was just hoping for more progress is all.


I don't know, if researchers keep finding exploits and the fixes keep including a "few percentage points of lost performance" then the performance gap is going to be closed even more so than it already is with Zen 2/Ryzen 3000.

Even if there is going to be a performance difference between AMD and Intel, unlike with Zen and even Zen+, the performance difference is going to be much smaller. If I had to hazard a guess, probably 5% difference in performance, maybe even less. And once you get down to those numbers, it doesn't at all matter except to those who care about nothing but benchmark numbers. Real world performance difference will be negligible to 95% of users this time around and that's really all that matters.

In other words, as Hardware Unboxed titled their video... Intel is screwed.


----------



## Hellfire (May 27, 2019)

Hey guys.... What's with the animosity towards each other. Either way from an AMD or Intel fan point of view these releases are good news.

I've used Intel for years (before that it was AMD) so I swap and change based on best CPU but I can see something here for AMD is really worth trying and looks to be an amazing lineup of CPUs, especially with the IPC increase.

So AMD fans have a great, future proofed family of CPUs to sink their teeth into.

And Intel fans, well hopefully for you guys it will get Intel to push back against the competition.

At the end of the day whether you're Intel or AMD fans or like me and unbiased. This is good news for everyone and is pushing computing to the next stage.


----------



## B-Real (May 27, 2019)

In games/ST performance, the 3700X matches the 9700K, 3800X matches the 9900K.  Fantastic.

Hopefully, new GPUs will be priced under NV and be available in satisfactory quantities too (unlike the Polaris, Fury, Vega start).


----------



## Countryside (May 27, 2019)

So the msrp of Ryzen 3600 is 199usd ?


----------



## B-Real (May 27, 2019)

Countryside said:


> So the msrp of Ryzen 3600 is 199usd ?


Yep. The prices are the same, but you get 15% more performance in single threaded performance and same power consumption.


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

trparky said:


> What do you expect from an Intel fanboy? The guy is showing all the classic signs of an Intel fanboy.
> 
> I don't know, if researchers keep finding exploits and the fixes keep including a "few percentage points of lost performance" then the performance gap is going to be closed even more so than it already is with Zen 2/Ryzen 3000.
> 
> ...




we will find out soon enough when @W1zzard gives us new benches July 7th. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I hope I am wrong.


About what?


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

trparky said:


> About what?



the 9900K/9700k at 4.9/5ghz OC (which is easy to obtain on them) still beating the new ryzen chips by a few FPS across the board.  I was just hoping for more progress than 4.6ghz.  the 5.1ghz rumors for the new ryzen chips were a longshot I knew, but I was hoping 7nm was a game changer, but nope, the fact is Silicon is a dead beast when it comes to true IPC gains of past ages.


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

Define a few. If the difference is less than ten frames per second, big deal.

And besides, yes you can overclock those Intel chips very high but it's getting to the point where you need your very own nuclear power plant cooling tower to cool the damn thing.


----------



## Athlonite (May 28, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Bet they are HDs not RXs



Yeah unfortunately they are but in their day they were quite good GPU's for what they were


----------



## Litzner (Jun 3, 2019)

From what I have heard Navi 10 is still GCN, just a RDNA optimized tweaked version of it, and Navi 20 (5800+) will be the true full RDNA arch release.


----------

