# AMD Announces the Radeon R9 Nano Graphics Card



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD continues to push the boundaries of graphics card design, today announcing its category-creating AMD Radeon R9 Nano, the fastest Mini ITX graphics card ever to enable 4K gaming in the living room through ultra-quiet, ultra-compact PC designs. First previewed to gamers around the world during the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in Los Angeles in June 2015, the AMD Radeon R9 Nano graphics card is based on the graphics chip codenamed "Fiji," and is the third "Fiji"-based product to launch this summer alongside the AMD Radeon R9 Fury and R9 Fury X graphics cards. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury graphics family, based on the "Fiji" chip, marks a turning point in PC gaming with the implementation of High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) to deliver extreme energy efficiency and performance for ultra-high resolutions, unparalleled VR experiences, smoother gameplay, with the Radeon R9 Nano revolutionizing form-factors for enthusiasts everywhere.

With 30 percent more performance and 30 percent lower power than the previous generation AMD Radeon R9 290X card, the 175W AMD Radeon R9 Nano is the world's most power efficient Mini ITX enthusiast graphics card. The six-inch long, air-cooled board represents a new class of graphics card, enabling gamers, PC modders, and system integrators to build compact, unique, ultra-small form factors that have never before been possible, opening the door to new, sleek PC designs that are no bigger than a home DVR or videogame console, and look every bit in place beside them.



 

 

 

 




"With the Radeon R9 Nano graphics card, AMD is enabling 4K class gaming in your living room in an exceptionally quiet, ultra-small design built to excel in today's games and on the latest APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan. There simply is nothing else like it," said Matt Skynner, corporate VP and general manager, Product, Computing and Graphics Business Unit at AMD. "Our Radeon graphics line-up is ushering in a new era of PC gaming delivering remarkable performance, unmatched GPU designs and groundbreaking technologies. Today is a revolutionary moment for PC gaming, and we are proud to add this distinct product to our well-rounded AMD Radeon R9 graphics lineup."

The AMD Radeon R9 line of graphics cards offers a spectrum of products ranging in price from $199 - $649 SEP. The Radeon R9 Nano is priced at $649 (MSRP). Delivering stunningly powerful graphics for unparalleled 4K gaming experiences in their class, the AMD Radeon R9 Series meets virtually every need and budget for anyone who demands a premium gaming experience.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 27, 2015)

eagerly waiting for the review.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 27, 2015)

That card is the hot sex.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2015)

Some things from the briefing that AMD forgot in this press release:

The retail price is $649
On-shelf availability is projected for September 10. 

GPU Clocks are "up to", which means the card will rarely run at its peak frequency because it is power-throttled to 175 W, expected is "around 900 MHz"

Noise levels measured by AMD are 41 dBA

HBM overclocking will not be available
HDMI supported is 1.4, or higher when using a DP to HDMI adapter

No review soon, the NDA for reviews is much later, and I haven't heard anything from AMD regarding samples.


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Aug 27, 2015)

LOL @ price. Really makes you wonder how much the interposer and HBM cost.
But even *IF* it lives to the hype/marketing bull**** it still shouldn’t cost more than the non-x Fury or the GTX 980.

That said does it matter? It’s not like we'll be able to actually buy a card. Seeing as both Fury versions are having stock problems, having yet another card with the same chip should only make things worse.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 27, 2015)

Erghhh I was excited until the price  Then again it's basically a downclocked throttling Fury X


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 27, 2015)

That price will kill them, but on the other hand the price suits the limited stock.

I'll believe the AMD slides once we see benchmarks...


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

And a paper launch with no word of reviews.  Still, Sept 10th is only 2 weeks away.


----------



## _LEGendARY_ (Aug 27, 2015)

Damn it AMD. The entire Fury line up has been a disappointment for me. especially the overclocking part. You can't extract a fair amount of fps from these videocards in contrast to the GTX 9xx. 
I'd probably just get the 980 ti. This should set me free for a year.


----------



## JAKra (Aug 27, 2015)

I rarely write here, but I’m going to share my opinion now.

What is this now? Is it an announcement or is it a product launch? Because I am confused. 
It fails both.

1)  Remember the times when you could buy a launched product? I do. Remember paper launches when you could at least read reviews a week or weeks before able to buy these? My memory is not that short: Fury X

2)  How many times do you “announce” a product? I think this is like the 2nd major announcement, because we already knew about it’s existence.

*To AMD - Please announce the next generation graphic family built on FinFET tech next week. Better early than late. 


Reading a few of W1zzards comments lately I kinda have the feeling that AMD does not care that much anymore and the support for reviewers is the worst in years.

As an AMD fan am going to look at the bright side:
I have a small museum of sorts AMD and ATi(only) with more than 20 functioning PCs form the original IBM XT till nowadays. If AMD goes bankrupt or will be bought, my collection will worth more.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 27, 2015)

_LEGendARY_ said:


> I'd probably just get the 980 ti. This should set me free for a year.


 
Quite a bit more than a year. That's a two to 3 year upgrade cycle purchase.


----------



## _LEGendARY_ (Aug 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Quite a bit more than a year. That's a two to 3 year upgrade cycle purchase.



lol  .. You know that itch you get every new hardware release!
Next year is gonna be an exciting one. The 16nm train is gonna hit hard. I currently have a very decent video card, an R9 290 water cooled. I just want that extra gravy on 1440p/81Hz. And crossfire/sli is not an option


----------



## Steevo (Aug 27, 2015)

Hard to manufacture die and substrate package with onboard memory FTW?

I am guessing with the cost to AMD to manufacture this they have to ask for such a price premium to make it profitable.


----------



## Retell (Aug 27, 2015)

_LEGendARY_ said:


> lol  .. You know that itch you get every new hardware release!
> Next year is gonna be an exciting one. The 16nm train is gonna hit hard. I currently have a very decent video card, an R9 290 water cooled. I just want that extra gravy on 1440p/81Hz. And crossfire/sli is not an option



81Hz??


----------



## _LEGendARY_ (Aug 27, 2015)

Retell said:


> 81Hz??



Yep. Manually overclocked my monitor.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 27, 2015)

_LEGendARY_ said:


> Yep. Manually overclocked my monitor.


80Hz would be better than 81. Is 81 where yours topped out, even after reducing timings?


----------



## Furunomoe (Aug 27, 2015)

btarunr said:


> The six-inch long, air-cooled board represents a new class of graphics card, enabling gamers, PC modders, and system integrators to build compact, unique, ultra-small form factors that have never before been possible, opening the door to new, sleek PC designs that are no bigger than a home DVR or videogame console, and look every bit in place beside them.



Yeah whatever. Even the slim RVZ/FTZ-01/02 or the Node 202 or that Azza something could accept a full length graphic card. Why should I buy this crippled $649 graphic card instead?


----------



## Fx (Aug 27, 2015)

Jizzler said:


> That card is the hot sex.



Yes it is. I like it. I like it a lot.


----------



## Kissamies (Aug 27, 2015)

Furunomoe said:


> Yeah whatever. Even the slim RVZ/FTZ-01/02 or the Node 202 or that Azza something could accept a full length graphic card. Why should I buy this crippled $649 graphic card instead?


Crippled? It has nothing disabled on the chip.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

9700 Pro said:


> Crippled? It has nothing disabled on the chip.



Crippled by the TDP limit. It's like putting a speed limiter on it.  But it's not crippled, its an essential design element.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Aug 27, 2015)

_LEGendARY_ said:


> Damn it AMD. The entire Fury line up has been a disappointment for me. especially the overclocking part. You can't extract a fair amount of fps from these videocards in contrast to the GTX 9xx.
> I'd probably just get the 980 ti. This should set me free for a year.



Why so? The FuryX competes quite well with the 980 TI. I wouldn't bother spending over $350 on a graphics card, but for those who do spend that much on graphics cards, I'd say the FuryX is more than appealing, with potentially surprising performance upgrades once those DX12 games start coming out. We'll see soon how GTA V will perform on this card once the DX12 patch is released. 

This card seems to be targeting micro ATX/HTPC systems with its low power and small form factor.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 27, 2015)

So WCCFTech was actually right for once?

$649. *$649*. That's like, $880 CAD. I guess cadaveca  isn't getting a Nano anytime soon.

Way to rub the "niche" part in our faces, AMD. If you had been a bit more vague about it and set the price at $350, people would have been eager to buy it over the GTX 970.

This has nothing to do with mITX cases. The SG08 is basically the only well-known case that requires a card like this under certain circumstances. Even so, I could buy a 970 DC Mini, grab myself another 500GB 850 EVO and still have some $ left over for lunch.

I guess the 280X and 265 got what they wanted. They're definitely sticking around.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Aug 27, 2015)

More info here:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...a-full-fury-x-into-a-tiny-6-inch-form-factor/

And wtf is AMD thinking? $649 for less performance than Fury X? They have completely lost their marbles, I was seriously looking forward to upgrade my Radeon box with two of these cards, but AMD just lost me as a customer, for shame


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 27, 2015)

I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share 

Ars doesn't have a review, that page is just a glorified announcement. They even push the 'potential for overclocking' while we already know how that will work out - especially with a 175W TDP.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 27, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share



Probably Nano will change it, after all. It will actually help AMD's market share to keep declining.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 27, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Probably Nano will change it, after all. It will actually help AMD's market share to keep declining.



Hahah, I wasn't going to go there, but yes, sad but true. Somehow AMD has managed to find another niche for a product that is not competitive at this price point. 'But it is for ITX'. Okay. Who cares?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Aug 27, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share
> 
> Ars doesn't have a review, that page is just a glorified announcement. They even push the 'potential for overclocking' while we already know how that will work out - especially with a 175W TDP.


Thanks for the correction, edited my post to reflect it


----------



## geon2k2 (Aug 27, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share



I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.

Guys its a tiny card with huge performance. 
Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this. 

I feel like everyone on this forum has an nvidia card in his computer, and they cannot believe what the others managed to do. (which is quite possible seeing the latest market shares)

If its worth the price or not its another thing, but yes, for some with very compact systems it will be definitely worth it. Not everyone likes a big noisy box with 5 fans in the house.


----------



## semantics (Aug 27, 2015)

geon2k2 said:


> I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.
> 
> Guys its a tiny card with huge performance.
> Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this.
> ...


You can fit a fury x in an itx case and it be quieter and do better, that's why it doesn't matter.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 27, 2015)

When I read the title of this card all I can think of is.........


----------



## awesomesauce (Aug 27, 2015)

see guys! size dont matter


----------



## 64K (Aug 27, 2015)

semantics said:


> You can fit a fury x in an itx case and it be quieter and do better, that's why it doesn't matter.



So it's not even necessary for an ITX build. I'm thinking the speculation is true that it will run at around 850 to 900 MHz on the core clocks but that is slower than the Fury X for the same price. It will use less watts which is good if you pay a lot for electricity. The only other compelling reason I've seen from people posting that they want one is that it's so cute.

Just speaking for myself aesthetics have some bearing in my choices for hardware but only after the quality, performance and price boxes have been ticked.

Maybe AMD should slap a 'Hello Kitty' sticker on the Nano.


----------



## Sihastru (Aug 27, 2015)

So... is everyone #disappointed yet? 

But seriously, I was expecting the core to be crippled in a much worse way. Having the full 4096 cores active is almost impressive.

Now what I don't understand is who is this card for? ITX people? Most of them can use the Fury X, and at exactly the same price, why would they care so much about the Nano? AMD is cornering themselves into a niche of a niche of a market that keeps getting smaller and smaller? They dropped to 18% market share last time I looked. nVIDIA, even with all the hate, is up to almost 82%.

What is AMD's plan here?


----------



## arbiter (Aug 27, 2015)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> We'll see soon how GTA V will perform on this card once the DX12 patch is released.


I don't think rockstar has plans for DX12 patch least they haven't said they do as far as i know.


----------



## xvi (Aug 27, 2015)

That's a very niche market they're banking on and even then it doesn't make sense. There are mini GTX 970s in the wild that seem like they're going to compete with the Nano and will do so with half the price. AMD's propaganda claims the Nano will be 30% faster than the mITX GTX 970s out there, but if Nano speeds are expected to weigh in a little under 390X performance levels, that puts performance a little closer to 10%.

I say this every time, I really like me some Team Red, but it just doesn't make sense. Again, I think we just have to wait for benchmarks. Even at the 30% claimed, AMD must be trying to capture that slim "fastest regardless of price" market to expect twice the cost.

Actually, they're looking for a niche market inside of a niche market. "Fastest regardless of price" AND "Fits in my mITX case". Many, myself included, would go mATX and a normal card.



			
				AMD Propaganda said:
			
		

>


----------



## Sihastru (Aug 27, 2015)

The GTX 970 MINI costs less then half, like $299 or less if you look around. 30% faster for 50% more money works only if you have the actual #1 performance card. This is not it. And performance press slides always translate into real-life performance results. As we all know.

Also, I'm going to be trolling again, how lame is it that they are again using an Intel ITX motherboard in an AMD PRESS RELEASE? Is AMD trying to tell us something? Maybe a future business merger?


----------



## semantics (Aug 27, 2015)

Sihastru said:


> The GTX 970 MINI costs less then half, like $299 or less if you look around. 30% faster for 50% more money works only if you have the actual #1 performance card. This is not it. And performance press slides always translate into real performance tests. As we all know.
> 
> Also, I'm going to be trolling again, how lame is it that they are again using an Intel ITX motherboard in an AMD PRESS RELEASE? Is AMD trying to tell us something? Maybe a future business merger?


They know their cpus are worthless for top performance. Their good cpus are the cheaper apu market where you'd want to use their discrete graphics unlike intel's, although intel's discrete are becoming better every year.


----------



## Sihastru (Aug 27, 2015)

Well, obviously... But for a press release shot, where you can't see if there's even a CPU installed under a heat sink, they could've used an AMD ITX board. There are a few out there.

I mean... have some pride!


----------



## Blue-Knight (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD, you've just failed one more time.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Aug 27, 2015)

They should have at least left the Intel sticker on the cooler. Using competitor hardware and disguising it as yours is very bad indeed. Good try tho, probably fools someone with that Radeon memory and all.


----------



## VanguardGX (Aug 27, 2015)

At this price point, I am sorry. This card is a no no. I just cant see why I would get this over a fury X.


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 28, 2015)

_LEGendARY_ said:


> And crossfire/sli is not an option



Cough-cough!

Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)


----------



## NC37 (Aug 28, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Probably Nano will change it, after all. It will actually help AMD's market share to keep declining.



All nVidia has to do is drop the 980 down to the $400 range and AMD will effectively be dead. 390s are just a better value than the 970/980s thanks to the VRAM. But hey, if nVidia wants to move 204s, bring that 980 down to compete and introduce 6-8GB models for both the 980 and 980Ti. Consider AMD dead if they do.

Frankly, the 970 is not a viable option due to the VRAM issue. 960 isn't viable because its a piece of crap. 980 is the only option and right now it is overpriced. 390s are the only viable options for the price segment. Which is the price nVidia pays for gimping the 960 with a 206 chip instead of a 204 and leveraging the 204 far too much.


----------



## mr2009 (Aug 28, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> Cough-cough!
> 
> Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)


Would love to see how one Crossfire this mini-itx GPU into a mini-ITX mothterboard that only have 1 pciex16 slot....


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 28, 2015)

geon2k2 said:


> I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.


It's bad when you offer less performance for the same price as a card you've just launched
It's bad when you remove an AIO and replace it with a vapour chamber but the cost remains the same


geon2k2 said:


> Guys its a tiny card with huge performance.


Don't get carried away. It's only an inch shorter than the Fury X.
Does that make up for an inferior cooler?
Does that make up for inferior clocks?
Does that make up for inferior performance?
Does that make up for being a louder card?


geon2k2 said:


> Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this.


Buy me one and I'll test out your theory


geon2k2 said:


> I feel like everyone on this forum has an nvidia card in his computer,


Most people are comparing the NaNO!NO!NO! to the Fury X. FYI both are made by AMD.
Maybe its more a case of people realizing that they're being offered less for the same price and they fail to appreciate AMD's line of reasoning. Why spend the same amount on a slower version of a card that already exists and has a much superior cooling solution and is barely an inch longer? 
It's awesome that AMD feel the need to fill a niche for *Intel* mini-ITX platform owners though. I'd assume that anyone buying a $650 card isn't going to want performance bottlenecked any further by anything AMD can put into that particular form factor.


geon2k2 said:


> and they cannot believe what the others managed to do.


Yep. If McDonalds decided to sell sliders for the same price as Big Mac's citing form factor as reasoning, they'd really be onto something.


geon2k2 said:


> f its worth the price or not its another thing, but yes, for some with very compact systems it will be definitely worth it. Not everyone likes a big noisy box with 5 fans in the house.


So, the market is for people who spend $650 on a graphics card, that have a chassis too small for a 19cm board, and prefer a high rpm fan to a quieter AIO/fan combo, and even though they spent $650 on a single card, don't care that it leaves a ton of untapped potential unavailable to them. Sounds like you'll need get in quick - these should sell like hot cakes.


TheMailMan78 said:


> When I read the title of this card all I can think of is.........


Robin Williams an AMD's BoD both afflicted by Dementia?


----------



## xvi (Aug 28, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)


Honestly, I'm curious to know why we can't plug in some kind of riser with a PLX chip on it that'll expand a single PCI-e slot in to multiple ones.
Wait.. No! I didn't say that! DIBS ON COPYRIGHT/PATENTS/ETC!


----------



## arbiter (Aug 28, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> So, the market is for people who spend $650 on a graphics card, that have a chassis too small for a 19cm board, and prefer a high rpm fan to a quieter AIO/fan combo, and even though they spent $650 on a single card, don't care that it leaves a ton of untapped potential unavailable to them. Sounds like you'll need get in quick - these should sell like hot cakes.


its for people that can't fit the AIO water cooler and want best 4k performance. but if you are not gonna play on 4k, but either like 1440 or 1080 you might well save half the $ for a gtx970


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 28, 2015)

xvi said:


> Honestly, I'm curious to know why we can't plug in some kind of riser with a PLX chip on it that'll expand a single PCI-e slot in to multiple ones.
> Wait.. No! I didn't say that! DIBS ON COPYRIGHT/PATENTS/ETC!


You mean kind of like these?


----------



## gaximodo (Aug 28, 2015)

I'm tired to see comments about AMD like this :'potential performance improvements'; 'performance upgrades thru out the years with drivers';'potential unlockable cores'; 'Potential overclockers' dream'.

Too much promises, too much uncertainties, based on AMD's track record, these uncertainties should not be valued while making a purchase decision. Especially all their products are pushed much further than competitors in order for AMD to keep competitive. 

I don't think Nano will be a good product for its targeted markets even at reasonable prices (in line with its performance), given its AMD measured noises and thermal outputs.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 28, 2015)

NC37 said:


> All nVidia has to do is drop the 980 down to the $400 range and AMD will effectively be dead. 390s are just a better value than the 970/980s thanks to the VRAM. But hey, if nVidia wants to move 204s, bring that 980 down to compete and introduce 6-8GB models for both the 980 and 980Ti. Consider AMD dead if they do.
> 
> Frankly, the 970 is not a viable option due to the VRAM issue. 960 isn't viable because its a piece of crap. 980 is the only option and right now it is overpriced. 390s are the only viable options for the price segment. Which is the price nVidia pays for
> gimping the 960 with a 206 chip instead of a 204 and leveraging the 204 far too much.



This is wrong on so many counts...

The 980 isn't going to drop to that range, Nvidia has no reason to compete at _every_ price point. And they have shown in the recent past they won't, with Kepler. The 680 only got cheaper once the 770 landed and only because AMD had the solid 7970/280x up against it. If Nvidia wants to compete, they use their cheapo 970. AMD is trying to pull a Nvidia with their Fury cards, thinking they're Titans on water, but nobody cares because of the negative image of the company and lackluster performance below 4K, not to mention the fact that Fury gets crushed after overclocked results versus 980ti. 980ti is both more versatile and less power hungry while having more VRAM and the power to drive it.

390s are not better value thanks to VRAM, because 8GB on that card is useless until you crossfire it. And there is no game that runs over 4GB on plausible resolutions either. It's a non-argument. You're not driving 4k with this, and if so, you need crossfire.
The 970 isn't gimped in a single card setup, there is zero evidence to support that.
The 960 can drop in price just like 660 did, making it an acceptable mid ranger. Remember however that we might still see a 950ti, just like 750ti pushed 660 out of the market. But then again the 950 is good enough already.

The bottom line is, AMD can only compete with their old line up and nobody really wants a Pitcairn these days anymore. So what's left? 390... which is also old news, that is not going to force Nvidia to do anything. And Nano, well I'm sure it looks great but they will sell about 3 of those.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 28, 2015)

why would they set the price SO high? if its PROJECTED to be as, or Slightly faster than a 980, then Price it accordingly, NOT $150 more...it looks like AMD id going to screw up theyre last chance @ a decent summer/fall.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 28, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> why would they set the price SO high? if its PROJECTED to be as, or Slightly faster than a 980, then Price it accordingly, NOT $150 more...it looks like AMD id going to screw up theyre last chance @ a decent summer/fall.


It might be indicative of the costs AMD has to absorb with Fiji/HBM, or it might simply be that there aren't many Fiji chips that can be binned for the voltage the Nano requires (I tend to think it is probably both). If that is the case then it doesn't matter what they charge to a degree, some people will buy it regardless, and pricing it low would just run out stock faster - in which case it is hard to maintain a presence with the card if it is perpetually out of stock.

If it is a manufacturing cost factor then AMD's balance sheet for the next 3-4 quarters is going to look decidedly ugly. Unless DX12 throws them a Hail Mary pass for the ages, debt servicing is  going to cornhole AMD. Paring back R&D any further is going to impact what we see (or don't see) in 2017, 2018...


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 28, 2015)

Everything is connected. Nvidia has the market share, profits and resources to keep pushing intense competition on top of struggling, with always-in-the-red figures AMD.

When AMD is in red, because it seems they will be there no matter what they do, it doesn't matter so much if it is MINUS 150 M $ or MINUS 180 M $. 

Instead of blind prices positioning, they can at least try to screw nvidia's party and heavily sponsor cards like the R9 Nano for considerably lower price tags. Give us that damn Nano for 450$ and call it a day. It will hurt nvidia, that's for sure. But no. 

Of course, it woun't happen if there is an active cartel between those two.


----------



## nem (Aug 28, 2015)




----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Instead of blind prices positioning, they can at least try to screw nvidia's party and heavily sponsor cards like the R9 Nano for considerably lower price tags. Give us that damn Nano for 450$ and call it a day. It will hurt nvidia, that's for sure. But no.
> 
> Of course, it woun't happen if there is an active cartel between those two.


$450 is too cheap for a card of this caliber. Since it is supposed to perform like a Fury, price it like a Fury.


Vayra86 said:


> This is wrong on so many counts...
> 
> The 980 isn't going to drop to that range, Nvidia has no reason to compete at _every_ price point. And they have shown in the recent past they won't, with Kepler. The 680 only got cheaper once the 770 landed and only because AMD had the solid 7970/280x up against it. If Nvidia wants to compete, they use their cheapo 970. AMD is trying to pull a Nvidia with their Fury cards, thinking they're Titans on water, but nobody cares because of the negative image of the company and lackluster performance below 4K, not to mention the fact that Fury gets crushed after overclocked results versus 980ti. 980ti is both more versatile and less power hungry while having more VRAM and the power to drive it.
> 
> ...


Agree with most of this...

1. That 8GB of vram doesn't get any better using CFx... not sure what you are trying to say there.
2. I can breach 4GB in BF4 with changing the resolution scaling (I run at 2560x1440 which is a 'plausible' resolution). GTA V can also easily breach 4GB at 1080p, I believe The Witcher can as well.


----------



## Ruyki (Aug 28, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Instead of blind prices positioning, they can at least try to screw nvidia's party and heavily sponsor cards like the R9 Nano for considerably lower price tags. Give us that damn Nano for 450$ and call it a day. It will hurt nvidia, that's for sure. But no.
> 
> Of course, it woun't happen if there is an active cartel between those two.



There's no cartel. AMD is simply following nvidia's pricing because it's best for them.

Fury cards with their interposer and HBM are likely more expensive to produce than their nvidia counterparts so starting a pricing war has the potential to hurt AMD more. And then you also have to consider that AMD is in financial trouble already and simply can't afford to lose even more money.

There's also the issue with Fury supply which seems to be limited but the cards still get sold at the price level AMD set. It would be stupid to change the pricing when it's actually optimal at this point.


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 29, 2015)

mr2009 said:


> Would love to see how one Crossfire this mini-itx GPU into a mini-ITX mothterboard that only have 1 pciex16 slot....



I used a GTX-690 Dual GPU card.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 29, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> GTA V can also easily breach 4GB at 1080p, I believe The Witcher can as well.



The only way you are going to breach 4GB in GTA:V is if you max out MSAA, which basically just renders the game at a higher resolution and then scaled everything down.  It is also the most inefficient AA method in use.  That being said, even with MSAAx2@1440p I don't breach 4GB...

The Witcher is a totally different beast.  The developers just cramp as many textures as possible into the VRAM, even ones that will never be used because they are for areas miles away from the player.  So the game doesn't actually suffer if only have 4GB of VRAM, it just doesn't load the furtherest textures.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 29, 2015)

MSAA will do that, but, it can be done without pretty easily. 

I have never played Witcher, so I don't know what happens when your vram is stuffed... but it can get stuffed.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 29, 2015)

nem said:


>



Sorry, but that CIO lady looks like a 2nd hand female Steve Jobs version. Her talk and her verbal gestures are exactly as Steve's. WTf?!


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 29, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> MSAA will do that, but, it can be done without pretty easily.
> 
> I have never played Witcher, so I don't know what happens when your vram is stuffed... but it can get stuffed.



Im running GTA5 on my HD6950 with settings exceeding the vram limit and have never had a texture loading problem, just saying


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 29, 2015)

Ruyki said:


> There's no cartel. AMD is simply following nvidia's pricing because it's best for them.
> 
> Fury cards with their interposer and HBM are likely more expensive to produce than their nvidia counterparts so starting a pricing war has the potential to hurt AMD more. And then you also have to consider that AMD is in financial trouble already and simply can't afford to lose even more money.
> 
> There's also the issue with Fury supply which seems to be limited but the cards still get sold at the price level AMD set. It would be stupid to change the pricing when it's actually optimal at this point.



Optimal while all figures show total decline in PC market and decline in discrete graphics sales ? Not to mention AMD's financial losses. You say optimal while being in the red. If someday things change and AMD lowers prices and begins to sell more and turns into green, then wouldn't it be more optimal than now?

Maybe something is not so optimal.

You have no right to say optimal and being in the red at the same time. Both contradict to each other. Unless you intentionally want to be in red.


----------



## Ruyki (Aug 29, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Optimal while all figures show total decline in PC market and decline in discrete graphics sales ? Not to mention AMD's financial losses. You say optimal while being in the red. If someday things change and AMD lowers prices and begins to sell more and turns into green, then wouldn't it be more optimal than now?
> 
> Maybe something is not so optimal.
> 
> You have no right to say optimal and being in the red at the same time. Both contradict to each other. Unless you intentionally want to be in red.



I don't see a contradiction. AMD could be making the most money possible out of the Fury line with the prices they have set. While at this same time this money might not be enough to bring the entire company into the green. AMD is big after all and the Fury line is just one of their many products.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Aug 29, 2015)

It all went horribly wrong long before Fury was released. When it was still a bunch of documents, they decided to make a "HALO" product hoping for miracles. 
It didn't turn out quite so well, and competitor managed to catch up and even surpass the performance goals set for the "HALO" product we know as Fury series. 

What they need is reasonably fast & decent perf/w & affordable card they can sell huge quantities. That is where the big bucks are.
Putting all your eggs in one basket, which you can't produce in volume quantities or cheap was a bad move. I hope they saw this coming as well and moved resources to focus more on next gen cards long before Fury release. That, or they are completely screwed in near future.
You can only fire so many people and decrease R&D costs until you simply put lose the game.


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 29, 2015)

Damn, how do they think they'll manage to sell these for $650 when you can buy two 970s for that money? I expect very few people will buy this. Oh well, I suppose the total number of Fiji chips is on the low side anyways.


----------



## Yorgos (Aug 29, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Damn, how do they think they'll manage to sell these for $650 when you can buy two 970s for that money? I expect very few people will buy this. Oh well, I suppose the total number of Fiji chips is on the low side anyways.


I like this logic,
don't buy a Ferrari when you can buy 2 cheap Mercedes with the same amount of money.

I bet 2x 3.5 GB 970, considering the Dx12 bench and the win10 issues are the real deal nowadays.

...and if nVidia decides to support a different technology in their bloatware, you'll have your performance floored... just like the 700series fiasco with DC. There are many 780 owners out there(they don't even see their cards in the recent reviews, unlike some 290 and 290x cards.)


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 29, 2015)

Ruyki said:


> I don't see a contradiction. AMD could be making the most money possible out of the Fury line with the prices they have set. While at this same time this money might not be enough to bring the entire company into the green. AMD is big after all and the Fury line is just one of their many products.



The Fury line is so small part of the production that I guess it has very insignificant footprint on the financial reports.

I guess many other factors are wrong - like expenses inside the company, not very good contracts with GF and TSMC who might be charging a lot, not enough volume of sales which potentially could change something.... etc.
The brand name doesn't help either.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 30, 2015)

.......I'm still at a loss on how after the mining craze and all those console contracts there is virtually no change financially for Amd.  It is a top tier card and deserves a respectable price so i can'y hold earthly blame Amd....... If Nvidia released a Titan mini....it wouldn't be cheap either.......


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 30, 2015)

ensabrenoir said:


> .......I'm still at a loss on how after the mining craze and all those console contracts there is virtually no change financially for Amd.


Debt servicing.
AMD borrowed heavily (around $2bn) to finance the ATI acquisition. AMD paid $5.4bn in stock and cash, which turned out to be about $3bn too much.
With the debt burdon, and ATI's products not financing it, AMD has had to keep pouring funds meant to keep them competitive into bank loan repayments - which has generally meant that R&D goes hungry, and assets get sold to keep creditors happy.
Less R&D means less end product, and late product - and losing agility in a fast moving market usually means death.
Stripping away assets like their foundry business also meant that AMD was also totally dependent upon others for manufacture and timetable. Paying someone else to fab your chips also introduces their profit margin in the equation. I doubt whether AMD could/would have held on to their foundry business in any case (thanks to bigger fish like Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and a higher level of competition from UMC and Chartered Semiconductor) - but at least they could have sold (or spun-off) the business under their own terms rather than being forced into a fire sale (although it did dig them part of the way out of the hole)


ensabrenoir said:


> It is a top tier card and deserves a respectable price so i can'y hold earthly blame Amd....... If Nvidia released a Titan mini....it wouldn't be cheap either.......


AMD don't enjoy what is known as "Top of the Mind" brand awareness. Some companies have a higher stature with consumers than others - are recognized within their fields as leaders. Some are recognized as followers....and some aren't recognized at all. Intel has it, AMD doesn't - and most of that stems from the late 1960's. Back in the day, consumers didn't buy computers or computer parts. Computers were bought by tech engineers at companies from engineers at semiconductor makers. Intel was founded on IP and engineering (Moore and Noyce mainly, but many others as well - even if a lot of the prior work had been done by the same people at Farirchild. Even Andy Grove has a masters degree in chemical engineering). AMD was founded by two salesmen (Sanders and Turley), one bona fide semicon engineer (Sven-Erik Simonsen), five analog circuit engineers (Gifford, Botte, Stenger, and Stiles), and John Carey (engineering manager). None, except Simonsen, had much stature in the semiconductor business in relation to the staff at Intel. Then of course Intel started advertising and marketing to consumers before anyone else really got a handle on why they should.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 30, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> Debt servicing.
> AMD borrowed heavily (around $2bn) to finance the ATI acquisition. AMD paid $5.4bn in stock and cash, which turned out to be about $3bn too much.
> With the debt burdon, and ATI's products not financing it, AMD has had to keep pouring funds meant to keep them competitive into bank loan repayments - which has generally meant that R&D goes hungry, and assets get sold to keep creditors happy.



These creditors are devils. They always look to take more they had ever given - someone's existence is on the table and they will be happy to kill. 

This ATi acquisition turns out to be one of the biggest mistakes in human history.

Not only customers feel its consequences negatively because of lack of real progress in industry as a whole but also AMD will be extremely lucky if they get out of this deep hole in which those devils at ATi and the creditors put them.

What did they think when they forced ATi to sell itself with these 3 B $ overcharge ?
What are the positives of the A10 line? None compared to the cost paid.

We could have been much happier with AMD competitive to Intel, and ATi to nvidia. But no.
From four healthy companies, we are left with two - and the worse of them.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 30, 2015)

So, not only it's late, it's late late. I'm surprised people even bother to wait. I know I just got sick of it.


----------



## rvalencia (Aug 30, 2015)

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/oxide...to-disable-certain-settings-in-the-benchmark/

_*Oxide Developer* on Nvidia's request to turn off certain settings:

“There is no war of words between us and Nvidia. Nvidia made some incorrect statements, and at this point they will not dispute our position if you ask their PR. That is, they are not disputing anything in our blog. I believe the initial confusion was because Nvidia PR was putting pressure on us to disable certain settings in the benchmark, when we refused, I think they took it a little too personally.”

“Personally, I think one could just as easily make the claim that we were biased toward Nvidia as the only ‘vendor’ specific code is for Nvidia where we had to shutdown Async compute. By vendor specific, I mean a case where we look at the Vendor ID and make changes to our rendering path. Curiously, their driver reported this feature was functional but attempting to use it was an unmitigated disaster in terms of performance and conformance so we shut it down on their hardware. As far as I know, Maxwell doesn’t really have Async Compute so I don’t know why their driver was trying to expose that. The only other thing that is different between them is that Nvidia does fall into Tier 2 class binding hardware instead of Tier 3 like AMD which requires a little bit more CPU overhead in D3D12, but I don’t think it ended up being very significant. This isn’t a vendor specific path, as it’s responding to capabilities the driver reports._




NVIDIA is just ticking the box for Async compute without any real practical performance.


----------



## 64K (Aug 30, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> These creditors are devils. They always look to take more they had ever given - someone's existence is on the table and they will be happy to kill.
> 
> This ATi acquisition turns out to be one of the biggest mistakes in human history.
> 
> ...



Why are the creditors devils? Of course they intend to take more they had ever given. You do too with your investments. Even a simple bank savings account gets more than you put in because of interest accrued.

The investors in this major-fail company will lose a lot of money.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 30, 2015)

64K said:


> You do too with your investments. Even a simple bank savings account gets more than you put in because of interest accrued.



Sure, if there weren't those two things - negative interest rate and/or inflation. 

So, again, you are wrong - I am not putting on the table anyone's survival.


----------



## 64K (Aug 31, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Sure, if there weren't those two things - negative interest rate and/or inflation.
> 
> So, again, you are wrong - I am not putting on the table anyone's survival.



You do know that AMD is not a person that will die if they go out of business don't you?

Maybe the employees of AMD would be better off if they worked for another company that was managed properly. No?


----------



## Wshlist (Aug 31, 2015)

So correcting for the nano having a air cooler instead of a liquid cooler, we come to it being the same or slightly higher price than the regular big fury.

Hrmpf.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 31, 2015)

Wshlist said:


> So correcting for the nano having a air cooler instead of a liquid cooler, we come to it being the same or slightly higher price than the regular big fury.
> 
> Hrmpf.


*We already know the price ($650). 
"Big Fury" has a name, its called Fury X.


----------



## Wshlist (Sep 3, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> *We already know the price ($650).
> "Big Fury" has a name, its called Fury X.



That was my point, the price is just slightly under the 'big' fury (I called it that since the card is physically much larger, and the opposite of 'nano') and the price difference is about the price of the difference between the cooling solutions, or in other words it's the same price, one just is larger and has the more expensive liquid cooling. Bit odd that, since you'd expect a cheaper version rather than just a different version.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 3, 2015)

Not sure if techpowerup got one or not, but Pcper has a review sample. Techreport and HardOCP got denied samples.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2015)

I surprised H and Techreport got denied. If they did, then we likely did... I have been reaching out to my two contacts with no response and its a week away...


----------



## arbiter (Sep 4, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I surprised H and Techreport got denied. If they did, then we likely did... I have been reaching out to my two contacts with no response and its a week away...


https://youtube.com/watch?t=1921&v=O0sLUWlvU18
When they start to talk about how AMD does performance tests to make their claims not really hard to get why techreport got denied but then again they only spoke the truth. The video starts when at start of their talk about the nano. Skip to 36m20sec mark is when they start talking about "AMD benchmark guide". TR even went so far as to say they "biased" the test in their favor and from looks of the settings, that was what they did.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 4, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> MSAA will do that, but, it can be done without pretty easily.
> 
> I have never played Witcher, so I don't know what happens when your vram is stuffed... but it can get stuffed.


 
Just to note, The witcher 3 is actually the model more game developers need t follow, because it is actually very light on the VRAM.


----------

