AMD to Simultaneously Launch 3rd Gen Ryzen and Unveil Radeon "Navi" This June

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
37,449
Our friends over at TechPowerUp have a story up about AMD intending to both Launch their new 7nm Ryzen CPU's and unveil their new Navï based GPU's at the same time this May/June during Computex, presumably during CEO Dr. Lisa Su's Keynote.

I think many of us already suspected this might be the case already, but it is nice to have some corroborating reporting.
 
Grimlaking said:
If it did it would be called May. ;)

Yea I am looking forward to this and hope they have a surprise successor to the Vega VII with better performance.
Click to expand...
Navi probably won't this year. Tbh GCN needs to die first before we get what we want.
 
N4CR said:
Navi probably won't this year. Tbh GCN needs to die first before we get what we want.
Click to expand...

Meaning I will have to wait until at least then to upgrade my 2400g unless someone comes out with a descent ITX GPU.
 
Well i hope unveil mean with imminent launch, in July / August i will have the money to buy whatever GFX card i feel are sensible priced and performance.
I will be good with Vega VII performance at a lover power usage, i don't need the Uber GFX card as i am on a 1080 screen for the foreseeable future.
 
Hopefully zen2 will provide a meaningful upgrade to my 6850k. 12 cores ~4.8ghz would be pretty awesome
 
It would be awesome if this was a hard launch with NDA ending and stock in warehouses when Su gives the keynote.
 
I hope they have something special up their sleeves, but I agree the GCN architecture is a bit long in the tooth. Manufacturing process will only get you so far. Hopefully they surprise us with something next gen on the GPU front and the current up to now rumors are wrong.
 
N'greedia sitting by hoping Navi flops (while simultaneously increases pricing on 1660's up to $299)
 
if im doing cpu upgrades, amd next for me i think. but sadly ipc of 5820k is still solid, best god damn cpu investment i ever did. it really was a bargain at the time i got it, even 4 cores go for same right now :p dont think i should change anytime soon. even ddr4 was cheap, as the need for it was so low at the time. only thing that cost alot was MB in comparison.
 
Krenum said:
You can rest assured that it wont be.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I hope you're wrong. And if it turns out you are wrong I'm going to find this thread... and I'm going to dance upon your posts proclaiming just how wrong you were. On the inverse if you are right I will quietly ignore this thread in the era of what I want to hear is what I should hear. Plus... meh...
 
Grimlaking said:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I hope you're wrong. And if it turns out you are wrong I'm going to find this thread... and I'm going to dance upon your posts proclaiming just how wrong you were. On the inverse if you are right I will quietly ignore this thread in the era of what I want to hear is what I should hear. Plus... meh...
Click to expand...

Well, I have history on my side, so I feel that I have the upper hand :p
 
jlbenedict said:
N'greedia sitting by hoping Navi flops (while simultaneously increases pricing on 1660's up to $299)
Click to expand...
Nvidia isn't sitting around sweating what AMD does, because theyre so many laps ahead. Navi isn't going to flop but it also won't make any meaningful dent in NV marketshare. It's also not going to be a high end flagship part.
 
Grimlaking said:
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I hope you're wrong. And if it turns out you are wrong I'm going to find this thread... and I'm going to dance upon your posts proclaiming just how wrong you were. On the inverse if you are right I will quietly ignore this thread in the era of what I want to hear is what I should hear. Plus... meh...
Click to expand...
Can you tag me if you do this?

I'd like to see it.

Thx.
 
odditory said:
Nvidia isn't sitting around sweating what AMD does, because theyre so many laps ahead. Navi isn't going to flop but it also won't make any meaningful dent in NV marketshare. It's also not going to be a high end flagship part.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what Intel thought about the Treadripper/EPYC Cpu's. Not that they have made a huge impact in the corporate space... yet! ;) I have hope we get to POC a nice big Epyc box for a SQL or ESXi Refresh.
 
I like to support the underdog, but Navi might be DOA if it ships 6-9 months later and only matches Nvidias 2060/2070
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The x79 3930k will have to keep soldiering on.
Click to expand...

I only upgraded to a 4960x because I got a deal on one. Otherwise I'd still be on my 3930k.

sleepybp said:
I like to support the underdog, but Navi might be DOA if it ships 6-9 months later and only matches Nvidias 2060/2070
Click to expand...

AMD already has parts that are competitive with the 2070. Hell my factory OC'd Vega 64 is comparable. They need to be beyond that.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'd prefer it if they keep the core count modest at 6-8, and instead try to eke every last bit they can out of the thermal envelope to maximize clocks.

Per thread performance is still king.
Click to expand...

Well, the $499 12-core Ryzen 9 is going to target the Core i9-9900K

This is a new price target
 
Oldmodder said:
Well i hope unveil mean with imminent launch, in July / August i will have the money to buy whatever GFX card i feel are sensible priced and performance.
I will be good with Vega VII performance at a lover power usage, i don't need the Uber GFX card as i am on a 1080 screen for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

That's called the GeForce RTX 2080
 
OFaceSIG said:
I only upgraded to a 4960x because I got a deal on one. Otherwise I'd still be on my 3930k.
Click to expand...

Yeah, honestly, since I play at 4k60hz, my CPU only ever has to support 60fps, and it could probably do that even without my 4.8Ghz overclock. The none game stuff I do usually isn't that CPU intensive either. I spend most of my time GPU limited at 4k60hz.

The things I do want to upgrade for - however - are:

- Heat: At 1.445v and 4.8Ghz, this thing really heats up my office in the summer. Since I live in a part of the country where central AC is rare, I am dependent on a window unit, and it is loud, and barely able to keep up with both the summer heat, and the PC heat :p

- M.2 Support: I am currently booting off of a 400GB Intel SSD750 PCIe SSD, because it was the only PCIe SSD I could find that has a bootrom, and can thus boot without an NVME aware BIOS. I have a secondary M.2 SSD (1TB Samsung 970 EVO) in a PCIe to M.2 adapter, but I can't boot from it, so I keep the slower Intel SSD as my main OS drive. I know this can be solved through BIOS modding, but the last thing I want to do is brick this thing, as support for something old like this from Asus is probably limited.

All of that said, I am amazed I am still using a CPU and Motherboard I bought 8 years ago in my main desktop. I used to be on the "once a year" upgrade cycle back in the day.

Also, I have been eyeballing that announced Asus ROG 4k 120hz FreeSync2 screen. If it winds up having a reasonable price when it finally gets announced, and I get it, the CPU might start showing its age. Of course, that would require a faster GPU too.
 
Gideon said:
You may get that option but to be honest I am not paying a premium for 200Mhz and getting 4 less cores.
Click to expand...

But why? With a few notable exceptions (rendering and encoding workloads) throwing more cores at a problem never helps.

So the cores just sit unutilized taking up space and generating heat preventing you from hitting higher clocks on the cores you are actually using.

We have finally gotten to the point where 4C/8T probably isn't enough. But today 6C/12T is enough. Make it 8C/16T to give yourself some room to grow.

The remaining 4 cores are just plain wasted.

Didn't we learn from the last time?

images.jpg


Except now Intel is doing it too...
 
Hopefully they use the same socket and I can upgrade to a 3700X from the 1700X. Not that I have any real reason to but who needs a reason?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
But why? With a few notable exceptions (rendering and encoding workloads) throwing more cores at a problem never helps.

So the cores just sit unutilized taking up space and generating heat preventing you from hitting higher clocks on the cores you are actually using.

We have finally gotten to the point where 4C/8T probably isn't enough. But today 6C/12T is enough. Make it 8C/16T to give yourself some room to grow.

The remaining 4 cores are just plain wasted.

Didn't we learn from the last time?

View attachment 152602

Except now Intel is doing it too...
Click to expand...

I have no issues with using 8C/16T on my current system. So having a few more cores is just fine and more useful to me for the money then 200Mhz for the same amount of money. Unless your benchmark crazy you would never even notice that 200Mhz anyway. Speed is important to a point but so are cores these days if you do more then just game.
 
sleepybp said:
I like to support the underdog, but Navi might be DOA if it ships 6-9 months later and only matches Nvidias 2060/2070
Click to expand...

Navi 10 is a mid range part. It's only going to match a 2060/2070. What is supposed to be different (in theory) is the price for that performance. If you get an AMD card that's $350 and matches Nvidia's $500 card, it doesn't really matter if it's 6-9 months late (3Q'19 more likely I'd guess).
 
kirbyrj said:
Navi 10 is a mid range part. It's only going to match a 2060/2070. What is supposed to be different (in theory) is the price for that performance. If you get an AMD card that's $350 and matches Nvidia's $500 card, it doesn't really matter if it's 6-9 months late (3Q'19 more likely I'd guess).
Click to expand...


Well, I mean, it matters for those of us who I only care about having an alternative at the 2080ti or above level.

All these mid range part launches bore the shit out of me. I want to see competition bring the price of top end consumer parts back down from the insane $1,200 level. That's the only thing I care about on the GPU front.
 
kirbyrj said:
Navi 10 is a mid range part. It's only going to match a 2060/2070. What is supposed to be different (in theory) is the price for that performance. If you get an AMD card that's $350 and matches Nvidia's $500 card, it doesn't really matter if it's 6-9 months late (3Q'19 more likely I'd guess).
Click to expand...

...realistically, probably competitors to the GeForce RTX 2060 for $299 and GeForce RTX 2070 for $399 at best
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Well, I mean, it matters for those of us who I only care about having an alternative at the 2080ti or above level.

All these mid range part launches bore the shit out of me. I want to see competition bring the price of top end consumer parts back down from the insane $1,200 level. That's the only thing I care about on the GPU front.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I understand that. But on the other, driving last generation's high end performance into mid range pricing is good for those on sub-4K monitors. The fact that Nvidia basically is charging the same this generation for the same level of performance of last generation is absurd. I turned my 4K TV back from a monitor to a TV and went to a 144Hz panel because I didn't want to play Nvidia's pricing games.
 
_mockingbird said:
...realistically, probably competitors to the GeForce RTX 2060 for $299 and GeForce RTX 2070 for $399 at best
Click to expand...

Which is still reasonable I'd think. Not everyone rushed out to buy an RTX card, but at some point might be looking at an upgrade. A lot of people still game at 1080p on GTX1060's. An AMD option might interest them if it's $50-100 cheaper. It just can't be more expensive for less performance (aka Vega 56/64 at launch).
 
Gideon said:
You may get that option but to be honest I am not paying a premium for 200Mhz and getting 4 less cores.
Click to expand...

For me it depends on price. If I can get 8C/16T for $100 less, I very well might end up with that instead of a 12C/24T part. If pricing was equal, I'd go with 4 more cores and drop the 200mhz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top