Sunday, May 26th 2019

AMD Computex 2019 Lisa Su CEO Keynote: Live Blog

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.
Add your own comment

143 Comments on AMD Computex 2019 Lisa Su CEO Keynote: Live Blog

#76
Metroid
lynx29, post: 4054610, member: 153071"
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.
Posted on Reply
#77
xkm1948
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
Posted on Reply
#78
TheGuruStud
Metroid, post: 4054619, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#79
phanbuey
xkm1948, post: 4054623, member: 50521"
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.
Posted on Reply
#80
Mussels
Moderprator
Fatalfury, post: 4054604, member: 177174"
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
Posted on Reply
#81
xkm1948
phanbuey, post: 4054626, member: 45008"
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.........
Posted on Reply
#82
Metroid
TheGuruStud, post: 4054624, member: 42692"
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.
Posted on Reply
#83
TheGuruStud
Metroid, post: 4054629, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#84
R0H1T
Metroid, post: 4054629, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#85
HwGeek
xkm1948, post: 4054623, member: 50521"
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,
Posted on Reply
#86
ShurikN
Metroid, post: 4054629, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#87
Metroid
R0H1T, post: 4054633, member: 131092"
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.
Posted on Reply
#88
GoldenX
HwGeek, post: 4054635, member: 185585"
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.
Posted on Reply
#89
R0H1T
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.
Posted on Reply
#90
Metroid
ShurikN, post: 4054637, member: 140585"
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.
Posted on Reply
#91
phanbuey
GoldenX, post: 4054639, member: 160319"
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 :D
Posted on Reply
#92
TheGuruStud
Metroid, post: 4054638, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#93
Wavetrex
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
Posted on Reply
#94
EatingDirt
Metroid, post: 4054638, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
#95
ShurikN
Metroid, post: 4054645, member: 178915"
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...
Posted on Reply
#96
Xzibit
R0H1T, post: 4054640, member: 131092"
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.
Posted on Reply
#97
R0H1T
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.
Posted on Reply
#98
Metroid
Wavetrex, post: 4054650, member: 182738"
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, post: 4054652, member: 176500"
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.
Posted on Reply
#99
R0H1T
Metroid, post: 4054658, member: 178915"
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!
Posted on Reply
#100
TheGuruStud
Metroid, post: 4054658, member: 178915"
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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment