Everything AMD Announced At E3 2019

New partnerships, a Navi GPU, some games on new hardware and a view to the future. AMD's been talking up high frame rates and low latencies for a while, and at E3 they finally announced what tech they have that might power that.

Much of AMD's E3 presser was outlined at Computex, when the company spoke about its upcoming suite of hardware based off the 7nm manufacturing process. A July release was announced for the next-gen Ryzen CPUs, but the company's 7nm next-gen GPUs — not including the GCN-based Radeon 7 GPU — were still missing some details.

After talking about how the company bet on the 7nm process five years out — a similar line given to investors at Computex — Dr Lisa Su spoke about how Sony and Xbox would be building their consoles on the Zen 2 and next-gen RDNA architecture.

But the conference wasn't an advertisement for consoles — it was a discussing about PC. The Radeon RX 5700 series, the first GPU to utilise the PCI Express 4.0 standard, leaked shortly before the conference began. Featuring 8GB GDDR6 RAM and base/boost clock speeds of 1605 MHz/1905 MHz respectively, the card would launch in two versions.

The 5700 Pro, which is designed to compete with the RTX 2060, is priced at $US379 internationally. The 5700 XT GPU is the top-of-the-line offering, and priced at $US449 to compete with the RTX 2070 (which sells for $680 or more locally). Both cards would launch worldwide on July 7, although local availability is expected to be a few weeks behind.

Everything AMD Announced At Computex 2019

Invited to give Computex's opening keynote for the first time in the company's history, AMD chief executive Dr Lisa Su began the annual tech show by demoing a 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen desktop gaming CPU, Navi GPUs and a new collaboration with Microsoft.

Read more

After leading with some decks with some FPS, AMD ran a canned benchmark with The Division 2 comparing the Ryzen 9 3900X to the i9-9900K at 1440p on a High preset. To further hammer home the benefit of more cores, AMD had both machines run a stream while they were benchmarking using the slow OBS quality preset at a bitrate of 10,000kbps (1080p). Unsurprisingly, the i9-9900K struggled to stream and play the benchmark at the same time. The 3900X dropped frames as well, but the point was obvious.

Unlike their Computex briefing, AMD also ran a live demo of their Ryzen 5 CPUs. Running CS:GO at 1440p — a game that requires a very high frame rate, and one that's very CPU bound — between the 3600X and i5-9600K had comparable frame rates of around 260 to 280fps while playing deathmatch. The 9600K had slightly higher frames in parts, but AMD's point was that you could get the same level of performance with more threads for non-gaming workloads.

Talking about "leadership performance in its class" — read: not the best GPU in the world, but the best at its targeted price point — AMD unveiled the raw specs, which matched what leaked beforehand.

Using what they described was the "best against the best" — the highest possible scores recorded, rather than median or the average — a slide was shown again with 1440p results against the RTX 2070. A similar slide was shown against the RX 5700 and the RTX 2060, with the "best" results for the 5700 base card supposedly between 4 percent and 16 percent better (save for Battlefield 5, which was 21 percent better) than the RTX 2060. None of these figures have been confirmed by third party vendors or reviewers at the time of writing.

Outside of the hardware, AMD also announced FidelityFX, an open-source image quality toolkit for developers. It's designed to improve the sharpness and detail in softer parts of the image. A before and after of Borderlands 3 was shown, with small honeycomb textures in the wall visible once FidelityFX was enabled.

Radeon Image Sharpening would also be launched through the Radeon drivers when the new Radeon 5700 cards are released, with less than 2 percent hit to frame rate when enabled. Another new feature is Radeon Anti-Lag (RAL), which is designed to reduce lag between the graphics card and the monitor to reduce end-time latency.

The technology, AMD claimed, reduces input lag by about a frame to a frame and a half. Across a range of competitive focused games, the click-to-response time was supposedly between 15 percent and 35 percent lower after turning on RAL. As a pre-order bonus, any Radeon 5700 or select Ryzen CPUs would come with a Xbox Game Pass PC subscription.

The rest of the conference was then a showcase for AMD partners and third-parties. Unity spoke about their upcoming graphics renderer, while some fresh Gears 5 and Borderlands 3 footage was played on stage. Ubisoft took the stage, adding that Ghost Recon: Breakpoint would be optimised for AMD CPUs and the Radeon RX 5700 GPUs.

The final announcement of the conference was the 5700XT 50th Anniversary Edition, sold through AMD.com for $US499. It's clocked slightly higher than the 5700XT with 40 Compute units. Following that was an extra gaming CPU, the 16 core / 32 thread Ryzen 9 3950X running at 105W TDP. Running at a max of 4.7Ghz (0.1Ghz higher than the 3900X) and 72MB total cache, the 3950X would launch in September for $US749.

This post is being updated live...


    That whole Best against the Best ploy really doesn't work when their best card is meant to match up to Nvidia's 3rd tier offering.

      Adding to that, did you see a single reference to 4K gaming in any of those slides?

      I get the references to 1440p because that's where all the 240Hz monitors and most of the affordable 144Hz screens are at ... but even this year we're getting laptops with 4K/120Hz screens and next year we'll have consoles targeting 4K and 120fps frame rates. Sticks out a fair bit if you're not talking about your performance at that res.

      That's what annoys me about AMD they seem to be happy being second best.
      The whole best at their targeted price point seems backwards. They didnt design a card for that price point. They designed a card then it's not as good as nVidia so they make it cheaper than nVidia.
      Is their company strategy second best is good enough?

        I don't think they're happy with second best, it's just the best that they can offer at both a reasonable price and arguably decent power consumption & GPU temps. It's really unfortunate because they are bringing the pain to Intel as we speak.

      Thats because Navi is designed to slot under the Radeon VII in AMD's GPU line up. Also, gamers don't buy AMD GPU's, even when they are faster, or cheaper, or both. So why should AMD be making halo cards?

        Nobody's going to buy an AMD GPU that's faster OR cheaper than a NVIDIA GPU, because the price differential usually works out in NVIDIA's favour when performance is considered. For an AMD GPU to be successful it has to outright be both cheaper AND offer significantly better performance. And that's kind of unfair to AMD, but NVIDIA have such a tight grip on the gaming market that going with AMD is just an ethical choice at this point. No mid-range to high end gamers will pick an AMD GPU at this point, it's just not worth it, and it hasn't been since... what, the Radeon 9800 Pro era, or something like that?

          Much closer. Just a casual look at the high end (everything else was much more touch and go) .

          3870\4870 - perf\$ and perf\watt
          5870 - perf$\, perf\watt and outright performance
          7970 - perf$ and outright performance (initial 680 release was faster but much dearer, 7970 faster again in 6 months).
          290X - perf$, outright perf until Ti came out.

        I mean, AMD's latest and greatest that haven't even launched yet, still can't match up to my 9 month old RTX 2080. I don't buy AMD because they're slower, simple as that. They might be okay for budget builds, but it's hard to market a "top tier" card that realistically is barely mid tier performance. Cheaper yes, faster, definitely not.

          You mean the radeon vii thats been out since the start of the year and trades blows with the 2080?

    I always hope for more from AMD announcements, but get less. Console deals are keeping them in business, but they really need to restore performance competitiveness at the top tier, not just price competitiveness at the mid tier.

      They've raked back a good amount of desktop CPU share, so they're doing a lot better than that. GPUs are still some ways off, though.

        CPUs are getting there, but it's still more a product of their pricing and underdog marketing than their performance. Their top CPUs still underperform compared to top Intel CPUs, the main appeal is they're half the price or less. On market share, it basically hasn't changed in the last 6 months with 18% share for AMD and 82% for Intel.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm no Intel fanboy. I use their stuff but I think as a company they're complacent, lazy and some of their business practices are downright dirty. I think the only way to wake them up and get their head back in the game - properly - is genuine competition. AMD's closing the gap, just not as fast as I'd like.

          Someone missing that you buy an Intel CPU, only to see performance pared back over time due to security issues?

          Or that AMD pretty clearly with this latest generation is beating Intel at MT workloads, and is now similar enough in ST for it not to matter.

          GPU's we can generally agree that AMD is behind (but hey, amazing what happens when gamers dont buy your GPU's even when they are faster, cheaper, or both), but you really should be more level when discussing the CPU lineup.

            This is kind of where I'm at. The security issues have now seen the 7900X I use at home get through some workloads (and gaming, since it's not hitting the same frequencies as the 1800X at stock anyway) slower than the 1800X that's in my work desktop PC. It's a farce.

            I'm very keen to see how the Ryzen 7/9 series clocks out next month.

            CPU performance is far enough apart to matter, in my experience. Heavy multithreading isn't a feature I need (nor most people), it won't be a decisive factor in games for another 2 years at best (at which point new generations will be available). Between reliable public benchmarks and my own lab testing, AMD doesn't meet my performance needs yet. Soon, hopefully, but not yet.

            Regarding microcode updates, performance loss is very situational. Most computational tests have negligible performance loss (sub 1%), with select tests seeing substantial loss (in particular, kernel scheduling, context switching and glibc).

              I'll be blunt here, we are sitting in a thread talking about AMD's now just announced 3rd Generation Ryzen aren't we? (I wouldn't see the point in talking about AMD's now year old gen in a 'look at these new CPU's thread', would you? lol)


                I'm talking about the trend AMD has shown over the last few years of closing on but never reaching (or exceeding) Intel's top-performing CPUs as measured by independent third party benchmarks. That trend appears to include the just announced CPUs as well, factoring the first party benchmarks they've provided, adjusted down by an appropriate margin based on the overestimations in previous generations.

                Third party benchmarks will tell if that estimation bears out.

                  Whilst notionally I agree with you on the 'wait until 3rd party' yadda yadda, AMD hasn't shied away from showing where Intel still holds true.

                  But hey, with rumours now we will be getting 10 Core cascade lake parts with disabled HT because of MDS, I'll say even those parts where Intel still holds a slight lead won't matter much for more.

      Came here to say this. Frustrates me that they still aren't a good enough competitor for either CPU or GPU . Intel and Nvidia can just keep charging whatever they want until there's actual competition.

        Their 3rd generation CPU's look to have twice the core count, better MT performance, and similar ST performance, and all within a constrained power envelope. AMD is clearly beating the pants off Intel here.

        As for GPU's, gamers don't buy AMD, even when they have faster cards, or cards that cost less for similar performance, so why should AMD be making these massive halo cards that no one buys?

          Except they're not. They keep shoving more and more cores, yet Intel's lesser core options still wipe the floor with them. If you have current CPU gen benchmarks that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.

          And I bought an AMD card once instead of a Nvidia one. Had nothing but issues with it the entire time (although that was during my Xfire/SLI phase... now I just do single card TI every time). If AMD makes a better GPU, I'll buy it. And so would everyone else.

      Honestly I don't think AMD care - they're powering the next generation of consoles and will likely see their CPUs/GPUs expand into other tech sectors beyond enthusiast gaming rigs. IMO they're innovating more than Intel and haven't suffered the same reputation hit from Spectre/Meltdown etc compared with Intel, but little of that translates to PC gamers anyway. They're just pivoting to a market that they can better serve and capture, and likely waiting for Intel to make a colossal fuckup like with the Pentium 3 or 4 lines.

        Agreed. But exclusive console supply is a non-competitive contract and console makers have demonstrated more than once that they're content to provide a capability tier significantly below that of PC hardware to keep costs down, so while that kind of deal is good for their bottom line once it's settled, it does nothing to force Intel to improve, and that's the part that's really needed at the moment.

        Intel now is like Xerox in the 80s. A company with an impressive track record of innovation, who dominated the market then sat back on their laurels and stagnated. The solution for Intel is the same as it was for Xerox - the competition needs to overtake them, quickly and decisively. So far AMD has been closing the gap, but never enough to truly change the status quo.

        That's the outcome I really want, and the one I firmly believe is in everyone's best interests.

    Considering the RTX 2080 and up has always been *way* outside my price range, I'm pretty happy with the Navi announcements, if their benchmarks are close to representative. Performance on par with a RTX2070, that costs 25-30% less? Yes please.

    The lag reduction might see some sales in the twitch-shooter space.
    For me, then Navi is a good product, as long as they can keep their pricing well under the 2070.
    Interesting no ray tracing news which probably means the PS5 etc is using the next generation parts for the GPU?

    As far as CPUs go, it’s a no brainer, this year will be my first AMD build, I can get the same or better performance for so much less money, I can afford to double my RAM and SSD storage.

    Without ray tracing. Is it a 2070 competitor or a 1070 competitor?
    I'm no ecpert in the area but reports i have read suggest unless you're trying for 4k gaming. The 10 to 20 series isn't much of a leap.

      I have a 2080 Ti, in everything except Metro I've turned off raytracing as it murders your framerate and often image quality for better lighting (I would have probably used it in Shadow of the Tomb Raider as well, but SotTR's prebaked lighting arguably looks better than RT).

      I dont think at this generation Raytracing is still all that important IMO. Next cards out will probably be different.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now