-ENDED- AMD Next Horizon Gaming E3 2019 Live Thread

[MeatFeastMan]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not a new thing though, I brought the Asus Rampage IV Black Edition . That actually had terrible standard features for the time lol.

 

Also the X570 chipset is way, way more expensive. Latest GN had it at $40 BOM cost.

Yeah. But if Gigabyte's prices are right, then how can a board that doesn't even have that much going for it be worth 700$? Even the Xtreme board from Gigabyte with a special heatsink for the chipset is supposed to be $100 cheaper than the ASUS flagship. The godlike is supposed to be around that 700$ price and it offers so much more than the Formula does including an m2 expander thing and a a 10g card.

 

Even the Aorus Master, which is half the price of the Formula supposedly, has pretty much all the features that the Formula does.

 

The x570 chipset may be more expensive, but if all the other companies are giving us far more for the price then there are no excuses for ASUS.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Yeah. But if Gigabyte's prices are right, then how can a board that doesn't even have that much going for it be worth 700$? Even the Xtreme board from Gigabyte with a special heatsink for the chipset is supposed to be $100 cheaper than the ASUS flagship. The godlike is supposed to be around that 700$ price and it offers so much more than the Formula does.

 

Even the Aorus Master, which is half the price of the Formula supposedly, has pretty much all the features that the Formula does.

 

The x570 chipset may be more expensive, but if all the other companies are giving us far more for the price then there are no excuses for ASUS.

Brand to brand equivalent boards will be around the same price. There might be a few really far out ones, maybe like the Asus $700, but X570 in general isn't going to be cheap when there is a single component at a cost of $40 to the manufacturer.

[_Hustler_One_]

41 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Yeah. But if Gigabyte's prices are right, then how can a board that doesn't even have that much going for it be worth 700$? Even the Xtreme board from Gigabyte with a special heatsink for the chipset is supposed to be $100 cheaper than the ASUS flagship. The godlike is supposed to be around that 700$ price and it offers so much more than the Formula does including an m2 expander thing and a a 10g card.

 

Even the Aorus Master, which is half the price of the Formula supposedly, has pretty much all the features that the Formula does.

 

The x570 chipset may be more expensive, but if all the other companies are giving us far more for the price then there are no excuses for ASUS.

How about the Strix X570-I? The normal ITX one, not the extra sized ITX.

Less than $250? Cant find its pricing yet..

[Valentyn]

14 hours ago, porina said:

I'd assume they ran with the latest general releases at the time to avoid any doubt with non-public or otherwise limited availability versions. 

 

The Windows patch to improve AMD performance is only likely to help in workloads that don't use up all the CPU resource. I can't say about the gaming ones, but Cinebench would use all the CPU so wouldn't see any benefit. As for any performance change on Intel side, outside of niche uses it isn't significant. While I'm not sure on the exact timing, the MDS updates have been out for at least a month (last patch Tuesday), not limiting the possibility they may make further refinements over time.

Folks on reddit reporting 10%+ in 3D loads with the latest benching, from 3DMark, to some games. 

 

Will be be interesting to see more tests done to analyze it.

[Trixanity]

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

This image from the presentations from Taf's post that i was responding to:

 

And yes i just read you link, honestly i'm even more confused, WTH is a wavefront? Is wavefront size like thread count for CPU's or something completely different? I got confused before and assumed it was the bit width of the item being worked on.

 

 

The original argument was that Navi was DoA because it fails to offer any reason to buy it over Nvidia hardware.You don't go out and pick a product at random when you buy somthing, (and neither do OEM's for that matter). Whilst OEM's are much more affected by brand recognition than the average consumer, at the end of the day if your going to buy one product over another there has to be a compelling reason to do so. Right now based on everything AMD themselves have told us there is no compelling reason to pick Nav except being an AMD fan and wanting to support them because the brand name is the only real world applicable difference between them, (the RTX series has ray tracing but at 2060/2070 level it's a bit pointless, though a lot of consumers will still justify buying NVIDIA for that reason). For some thats relevant, for most of us we don't give a damn.

 

And no it is not necessary because it makes an assumption that is almost certainly false. Namely that NVIDIA planned the super announcement knowing both the performance and pricing of Navi. Unless AMD screwed up big time they did not. That means they had to guess at where it would come out based on past pricing data and whatever they could find out about performance. Everyone in the tech enthusiast community expected Navi to be like the RX 500 series, aggressively priced to undercut NVIDIA.

 

Had that been the case Super would have outright been necessary.

 

But even if AMD did launch Navi at matching pricing with the RTX competition, launching the super line up lets NVIDIA tap dance on AMD's spine while singing a merry tune instead of just slapping them in the face. In competitive business you do everything you can to ensure your product wins out. Being in a tie with Nav is great for NVIDIA generally as brand recognition is going to give them the majority of share of the market anyway, but by releasing the super they take away even the brand recognition as a justification because they're no longer tied and that means NVIDIA gets even more of the share of the market than they allready would.

 

Basically NVIDIA ins either way but with Super they win more. It's like in racing, just because you've got a few seconds lead over your opponent doesn't mean you stop pushing for more if you can do it without breaking the car before the race is over. If possibble you try to outright lap your opponent and laugh, (proverbially speaking), at how far behind he is. And that enhances your brand power which earns you more money which is win, win, win.

It offers 6%/11% (average) improved performance at a lower price according to AMD. Usually you have to move up a tier to get into the 10-20% improvement range. It's up to the consumer whether they'll buy the brand at that little extra premium or buy the little extra performance at the lower price. That's the proposition. You can take that or leave it but Nvidia does not give any fucks in that regard. I can't recall them acting on an AMD release in any recent time so why would they start now? Last time they were asked the CEO basically said it was no competition. Nvidia will have the same stance this time. Any Super card is not some sort of response to AMD. So I just pointed out your straw man argument if you didn't notice. I have never claimed Nvidia planned for the performance. In fact if anything I would assume Nvidia planned on the launch being worse than what we got. If these Super cards are real, they'll certainly just be a mid cycle refresh that would have happened regardless of the market forces. I think you underestimate the position Nvidia have in the market and I think you underestimate the value proposition AMD provides and the ability for AMD to move the price around at will. Nvidia's chip is almost twice as big (445 mm^2 vs 251 mm^2) even if the wafers are more expensive, I think AMD comes out on top when you look at yields and ultimately the $/chip. 

 

So what does this all mean? The 5700 series will be fine. Nvidia doesn't have to act and a mid cycle refresh won't do much if the argument is that the 5700 series won't gain any traction.

 

If you got any more straw mans or useless arguments, feel free. However at least understand the point of contention first.

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

If you got any more straw mans or useless arguments, feel free. However at least understand the point of contention first.

 

I do, the problem is you don't.

 

The 5700XT and the 2070 have the same MSRP and if you trust AMD's results, (you'd be a fool to do so), is just 4.5% faster, thats only barely outside margin of error and even though where using median calculating the small sample size still makes the two outliers, (BFV is especially erigous when it lacks a proper benchmark making run to run results highly variable), very influential it wouldn't take much of a swing to drop the margin to within margin of error for the tests. In other words bearing in mind AMD are guaranteed to be goosing the results a little in practise they're tied. Any differences across a significant number of games are going to be so small they fall within margin of error, hich si fine, but when your being asked to pay the same...

 

In other words there is no 6-11% performance improvement at a cheaper price like your claiming. Which is the whole problem here.That leaves the 5700XT DoA.

 

 

[RejZoR]

Well, there are people who simply don't want to use NVIDIA products. Period. In that case, things are not so black and white anymore. I generally don't care, although I'm really sick and tired of shit NVIDIA control panel. Especially because I play older games a lot where enabling FSAA and AF means I spend quite some time in control panel. And it's driving me insane almost. Also NVIDIA's arrogance and smugness. It's why people generally like underdogs. They are not pretentious smug pricks. And NVIDIA is exactly that and has been for a while now.

[exetras]

2070 MSRP as of today is $499, It started out at $599(founders).

5700XT MSRP is $449

[Trixanity]

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

I do, the problem is you don't.

 

The 5700XT and the 2070 have the same MSRP and if you trust AMD's results, (you'd be a fool to do so), is just 4.5% faster, thats only barely outside margin of error and even though where using median calculating the small sample size still makes the two outliers, (BFV is especially erigous when it lacks a proper benchmark making run to run results highly variable), very influential it wouldn't take much of a swing to drop the margin to within margin of error for the tests. In other words bearing in mind AMD are guaranteed to be goosing the results a little in practise they're tied. Any differences across a significant number of games are going to be so small they fall within margin of error, hich si fine, but when your being asked to pay the same...

 

In other words there is no 6-11% performance improvement at a cheaper price like your claiming. Which is the whole problem here.That leaves the 5700XT DoA.

 

 

You just confirmed you don't read my posts properly. You're also posting factually wrong information. So that you don't understand the argument is quite evident. That your arguments are contradictory is just the cherry on top. Come back to me later when you've gotten over the hump of digesting things. 

[MeatFeastMan]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3950x-vs-intel-i9-9980xe-geekbench,39640.html

 

AMD proceeding to embarrass Intel with their 16 core monster. It's smashing the 9980xe which is an 18 core processor. On average it wins in multi-core by 31% (yes, you heard that right). AND...it was only being used at 4.3ghz boost . The actual real 3950x does 4.7ghz boost, so the scores could look even worse for Intel.

 

A $750 processor is dominating an 18 core flagship that costs $2000 while having 2 less cores. $750 may be more than we wanted it to be, but nobody should be moaning because this is one hell of a cpu for the price.

 

 

 

 

[_Hustler_One_]

People are amazed on how good AMD outperforms Intel, while amazed on how AMD is left out by Nvidia at the same time..

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, MeatFeastMan said:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3950x-vs-intel-i9-9980xe-geekbench,39640.html

 

AMD proceeding to embarrass Intel with their 16 core monster. It's smashing the 9980xe which is an 18 core processor. On average it wins in multi-core by 31% (yes, you heard that right). AND...it was only being used at 4.3ghz boost . The actual real 3950x does 4.7ghz boost, so the scores could look even worse for Intel.

 

A $750 processor is dominating an 18 core flagship that costs $2000 while having 2 less cores. $750 may be more than we wanted it to be, but nobody should be moaning because this is one hell of a cpu for the price.

 

 

 

 

It's geekbench, but that aside AMD often beat Intel in multi threaded workloads.   They sometimes did it with the outdated 8350 if you chose the right test.

 

For single threaded (if this is anything to go by) Intel are still holding ground.  But again, wait for real testing and multiple sources so we have a decent picture.

[CarlBar]

16 hours ago, exetras said:

2070 MSRP as of today is $499, It started out at $599(founders).

5700XT MSRP is $449

 

I'd seen 499 and same as 2070 repeated in several places, thanks for the correcton, at that price AMD may have a reason for you to buy it then, though a lot is going to depend on thermal and noise eprformance. ATM you can get 2070's in the Uk a 5700XT pricing with a blower so unles AMD's blower really is better it might still fall out badly.

 

16 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You just confirmed you don't read my posts properly. You're also posting factually wrong information. So that you don't understand the argument is quite evident. That your arguments are contradictory is just the cherry on top. Come back to me later when you've gotten over the hump of digesting things. 

 

At no point was i contradicting myself.  That said i don't mind being corrected if i've got bad info from somwhere, simply stating your posting false information however is about as useful a counterpoint as saying nothing at all.

[leadeater]

28 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

I'd seen 499 and same as 2070 repeated in several places, thanks for the correcton, at that price AMD may have a reason for you to buy it then, though a lot is going to depend on thermal and noise eprformance. ATM you can get 2070's in the Uk a 5700XT pricing with a blower so unles AMD's blower really is better it might still fall out badly.

Unlikely to actually be $449 though, not the AIB cards you'd actually buy anyway.

[CarlBar]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Unlikely to actually be $449 though, not the AIB cards you'd actually buy anyway.

 

Well true enough there ;), but they usually scale off the MSRP. 

[WereCat]

On 6/12/2019 at 1:46 PM, MeatFeastMan said:

I just wanted to share this nonsense.

https://www.techpowerup.com/256443/alleged-asus-amd-x570-motherboard-price-list-paints-a-horror-story

 

ASUS need to calm down...$700 for an ATX board that doesn't even have 10g ethernet? That is absolutely insane. What on earth have ASUS been smoking? Nearly 400$ for the Hero with Wifi.. compare that with around $250-$300 for the current x470 Hero...

 

 

 

That $700 board is for extreme overclockers. Like the KINGPIN 2080ti that costs $2k+

[RejZoR]

I have doubts about FidelityFX thing. It's the same crap as ray tracing. Gimmick that needs to be implemented by game devs. Meaning we'll have zero benefits for it for next several months to years. It's probably easier to implement and possible via patch more than ray tracing, but still.

 

I'd prefer if AMD replaced MLAA with SMAA (or added it) and make all thee fancy post process effects to be applicable for ANY game. That I'd be absolutely thrilled about. But now, not really. I've tried NVIDIA Freestyle. It's useless shit. Couldn't find a single game that would even work with it. Pathetic. What kind of garbage post process filtering is that if it doesn't work on anything? Not to mention you need to use stupid NVIDIA Experience and "Freestyle" has been "experimental" feature for ages.

[ravenshrike]

55 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I have doubts about FidelityFX thing. It's the same crap as ray tracing. Gimmick that needs to be implemented by game devs. Meaning we'll have zero benefits for it for next several months to years. It's probably easier to implement and possible via patch more than ray tracing, but still.

Now it's crap. However given that it will almost certainly be enabled in next gen console games you're going to see it popping up in pretty much every major game a year or two from now and the 5700 cards will be able to take advantage of it.