Monday, June 10th 2019

AMD E3 Next Horizon Event: Live Blog

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.
Add your own comment

133 Comments on AMD E3 Next Horizon Event: Live Blog

#101
unikin
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.
Posted on Reply
#102
TheLostSwede
medi01 said:

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.
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...
Posted on Reply
#103
Metroid
There are some news saying windows 10 update 1903 fixed ryzen scheduler.

[IMG]https://preview.redd.it/y8nxtm08um331.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=166374c9dde309fed115744562e454dca56b8dd2[/IMG]

Amd/comments/bz6egc

Posted on Reply
#104
TheLostSwede
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.
Posted on Reply
#105
medi01
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
Posted on Reply
#106
nemesis.ie
@unikin Does the title support crossfire? 2 x Navi might be good if they have crossfire enabled.
Posted on Reply
#107
Metroid
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.
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".


Glad we got down from "several generations". Now just need to figure out
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.
Posted on Reply
#108
Vayra86
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.
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".


Glad we got down from "several generations". Now just need to figure out
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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#109
Metroid
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".
Posted on Reply
#110
kings
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".

:D
Posted on Reply
#111
jabbadap
Metroid said:

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.
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.
Posted on Reply
#112
ZoneDymo
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".

:D
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.
Posted on Reply
#113
medi01
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".)
Posted on Reply
#114
Grog6
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.
Posted on Reply
#115
Metroid
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.
Posted on Reply
#116
sutyi
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".

:D
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...
Posted on Reply
#117
nemesis.ie
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.
Posted on Reply
#118
medi01
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.
Posted on Reply
#120
medi01
nemesis.ie said:

What site is that? Caseking?
Mindfactory. But I'd doubt this pricing to be unique to them.
Posted on Reply
#121
kings
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.
Posted on Reply
#122
nemesis.ie
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.
Posted on Reply
#123
john_
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

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.
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.
Posted on Reply
#124
TheLostSwede
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.
Posted on Reply
#125
Turmania
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!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment