# AMD Radeon R9 Nano Faster than GeForce GTX 980, Pricing Revealed



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD's upcoming super-compact graphics card, the Radeon R9 Nano, will be faster than NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980, and a whopping 30% faster than the GTX 970, according to the company. At its size, it will offer the fastest pixel-crunching solution for compact ITX/SFF gaming PC builders, and that is something AMD want to capitalize on. If what we're hearing is true, then not only will the R9 Nano have the same core-config as the R9 Fury X, but also its price - US $649.99. At this price, the R9 Nano definitely isn't going to affect sales of the GTX 970 or GTX 980, which are currently going for as low as $299 and $465, respectively; but serve as a "halo product," targeted at SFF gaming PC builders.



 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## KarymidoN (Aug 27, 2015)

649,99? No thanks.


----------



## xkm1948 (Aug 27, 2015)

Great card. Too bad I already got the FuryX.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 27, 2015)

Didn't expect it will be faster than the 980. So I expected a much lower price than announced. I was expecting between 390x and Fury price point.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 27, 2015)

US $649.99 = NZD $950.69 ummmm NO thanks you can keep it at that price


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 27, 2015)

Is this a joke?


----------



## Scrizz (Aug 27, 2015)

KarymidoN said:


> 649,99? No thanks.




Obviously someone was smoking the good stuff....


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 27, 2015)

It doesn't make much sense unless they are just selling the chip and the form is a toss in.

The also said..


			
				WCCFTech said:
			
		

> Do note that AMD also confirmed that while availability of the Radeon R9 Nano is planned for 10th September, the card will get custom variants after three months of its launch.



So AIB Nanos would be Fury X spec in the form of their respected Fury AIB forms


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2015)

This only makes sense in the context of premium Steam Machines.


----------



## DarkOCean (Aug 27, 2015)

It's like they want to go bankrupt !? all fury series an the reast of the rebrands are a bad joke in terms of pricing.  Well what more can I say, they did this to themselfs.


----------



## manofthem (Aug 27, 2015)

Sounds like a nice little card with a very hefty price tag. Would have liked to try one but never mind now


----------



## chinmi (Aug 27, 2015)

649 ?? LMAO

amd just keep on digging their own grave... and they wonder why they lose the  gpu market  to nvidia... ha ha ha

RIP AMD


----------



## Enterprise24 (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD bankrupt in 2020 is quite possibly. Several mistake by Lisa Su.


----------



## mr2009 (Aug 27, 2015)

God damn it AMD... what the hell are you thinking? Please ban weed in your company. Someone is high as f***ed when they think that price is just right...


----------



## rooivalk (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD new motto:
Hype and Disappointment™


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 27, 2015)

And they just got 3 people to buy R9 Nano for their gaming ITX system. The rest just can't be bothered...


----------



## NC37 (Aug 27, 2015)

That is all...


----------



## AsRock (Aug 27, 2015)

Wow that is a hefty price, how ever no one knows how much it's costing AMD to make these cards which might explain why nVidia are not bothering yet.

I do believe it should be at least $70 cheaper than the Fury X though due to the cooler at least how ever maybe this cooler cost more to design than the water cooler ?.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

Is there still the issue with connectivity for HTPC's (for use with TV's) with no HDMI or is that covered by 3rd party adapters?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Faster than the 980 for about 3 minutes until it throttles maybe...just long enough for most benchmarks to finish so the reviews look good, but actual performance is much worse.



the54thvoid said:


> Is there still the issue with connectivity for HTPC's (for use with TV's) with no HDMI or is that covered by 3rd party adapters?



All the shots show an HDMI, where do you get it doesn't have one?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2015)

All Fiji cards are 3 DisplayPort 1.2a and 1 HDMI 1.4.  Three devices max.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 27, 2015)

.......I think I know whats going on with Amd now........the villian from Phineas & Ferb who always builds doomsday devices  with a built in  self destruct button works there................cause every time they come up with something awesome.....it seems to have a built in fail button that the competition will take advantage of.





but in all fairness.....its a (supposedly-at that price it should be going toe to toe with 980 Ti) powerful card......just needs a little price tweaking and they can change the landscape in their favor.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 27, 2015)

I told some other members but they keep arguing with me. In fact, after reading all your posts, it turns that you, guys, have the same opinion like me.

Everyone EXPECTS cheaper prices. 450$ is perfectly fine.

650$ is a stupid joke. 

Thank you, AMD, but indeed you are not thinking with your heads.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 27, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Faster than the 980 for about 3 minutes until it throttles maybe...just long enough for most benchmarks to finish so the reviews look good, but actual
> performance is much worse.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm only guessing here but,...

Perhaps he intended to say no *HDMI 2.0* support for 60Hz with 4K Smart TV's which typically do not have DisplayPort connectivity.   

A niche market,...perhaps but the Nano is definitely a niche product.  

Personally I would rather buy a GTX 970 or GTX 980 because I would save a ton of money, still get decent performance and have the option of HDMI 2.0.  

I don't need my video card to be that small or that expensive,....


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 27, 2015)

Octavean said:


> I don't need my video card to be that small or that expensive,....



But I think small cards are extremely sexy and your computer case would feel better with those ones. I want it to be that small but not this silly expensive.

It should NOT be a niche product - all cards should be like that.


----------



## Frick (Aug 27, 2015)

What were you guys expecting? Serious question. I had extremely vauge expectation about it being slower than the 390x and cheaper.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

Octavean said:


> I'm only guessing here but,...
> 
> Perhaps he intended to say no *HDMI 2.0* support for 60Hz with 4K Smart TV's which typically do not have DisplayPort connectivity.
> 
> ...



Yeah, HDMI 2.0 is what I meant. But if its 980 speeds, its not fast enough for 4k at 60hz anyway.


----------



## Bad Bad Bear (Aug 27, 2015)

This sounds and smells like complete crapola to me. We'll see soon enough though.


----------



## Bad Bad Bear (Aug 27, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> But I think small cards are extremely sexy and your computer case would feel better with those ones. I want it to be that small but not this silly expensive.
> 
> It should NOT be a niche product - all cards should be like that.


100% agree and all cards should come with AIO cooling solutions stock.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 27, 2015)

To put a positive perspective to a thread topic that's about to go in unimaginable chaos in a few hours, at least the Nano is not $350 more expensive than it's projected performance range. So the overpricing crown still belongs to someone not AMD


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 27, 2015)

Octavean said:


> I'm only guessing here but,...
> Perhaps he intended to say no *HDMI 2.0* support for 60Hz with 4K Smart TV's which typically do not have DisplayPort connectivity.



HDMI 2.0 supports 4k content at 4:2:2 @ 60hz

You will need to use DP 1.2a+ for 4k at 4:4:4 @ 60hz


----------



## geon2k2 (Aug 27, 2015)

This is just WOW from a technological perspective.

Price is meh, I'll for sure never buy such an expensive card, but then again I'm not going to buy neither Mercedes nor Rolex and that doesn't mean there is no market for them.

Also since NV can get along with a 1000$ card, I don't see why wouldn't AMD get along with 650$ as long as they have the technological edge and in this case they definitely have it, its impressive to have so much power in such a small form factor.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

Sempron Guy said:


> To put a positive perspective to a thread topic that's about to go in unimaginable chaos in a few hours, at least the Nano is not $350 more expensive than it's projected performance range. So the overpricing crown still belongs to someone not AMD



You must mean Intel, with their x960 range of CPU's over the x930 model.



Besides, the 980ti's are as fast as the Titan X, so Nvidia kind of make weird pricing (where the fastest is pretty much  cheaper than their halo product). But hey, 980ti's and Fury X cost the same here so we have pricing equilibrium.


----------



## NC37 (Aug 27, 2015)

Was expecting $450 given early estimates. That would be enough of a premium for HBM.

However, now that it is more clear, I'd have said $500-$550 tops. Given that it is smaller form factor + it doesn't look to have Crossfire connections...not to mention it has a very basic HSF, yeah $650 is waaaaaaay too much.


----------



## Furunomoe (Aug 27, 2015)

$649! Great! This might well be the next VSA-100.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 27, 2015)

NC37 said:


> Was expecting $450 given early estimates. That would be enough of a premium for HBM.
> 
> However, now that it is more clear, I'd have said $500-$550 tops. Given that it is smaller form factor + *it doesn't look to have Crossfire connections*...not to mention it has a very basic HSF, yeah $650 is waaaaaaay too much.



Newer AMD cards don't need them they communicate thru PCI-E


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 27, 2015)

NC37 said:


> W it doesn't look to have Crossfire connections...



They don't need bridges anymore.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 27, 2015)

btarunr said:


> AMD's upcoming super-compact graphics card, the Radeon R9 Nano, will be faster than NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980, and a whopping 30% faster than the GTX 970, according to the company.



That "30%" was vs a mini gtx970 playing games at 4k. So is that same settings they used when they said fury x is 20% faster then a 980ti? Also their own benchmark show that its only about 10% faster then a 290x wonder how that translates to 30% over a gtx980? At $650 that with their claim of 30% over a gtx970 which well sadly can't be independently verified which likely will be proven as not completely true, the mini gtx970 can be has for under 300$. This card really needed to be ~500$ to be competitive but might well buy a fury x and figure out where to put the rad if you are doing a mini-ITX build.


----------



## SonicZap (Aug 27, 2015)

Fiji is expensive to make with its large die, interposer and HBM. AMD likely has to keep the price this high to make profit on the card. Furies are still out of stock everywhere too, so with the current production capacity they can't even satisfy the demand with the high price and without Nano. The high price makes sense from a business perspective. It does suck for consumers though.


----------



## pedromvu (Aug 27, 2015)

To be fair, everyone was expecting it to be just a bit better than GTX 970, that is why everyone expected lower price.

Currently the 30% increase versus a GTX 970 would put it in direct competition with GTX 980 Ti, which costs the same, but the nano having the advantage of being much smaller.

The current performance per price king seems to be GTX 970 at around $330, this is the point where more performance starts to cost much more which is why GTX 980 is not a good deal, in an ideal world, 30% more performance than GTX 970 would cost $429 in order to have the same performance per price ratio, if AMD wanted to really beat Nvidia they could have gone for $500 or even a bit more if it really performs almost equal to 980 TI.

But as it is now, it seems they just played by Nvidia pricing rules or maybe it is because they really cost too much to produce, maybe they know Nvidia could lower their prices if they try to upset them, so that would mean everyone loses, except consumers of course.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 27, 2015)

pedromvu said:


> Currently the 30% increase versus a GTX 970 would put it in direct competition with GTX 980 Ti, which costs the same, but the nano having the advantage of being much smaller.



30% is likely same 20% they claimed fury x was over 980ti. that 30% was done at 4k probably use those "special settings" that are shader based while anything like AF is turned off.



pedromvu said:


> The current performance per price king seems to be GTX 970 at around $330



I seen gtx970 mini's on newegg selling for 290$


----------



## horik (Aug 27, 2015)

For a while I wanted to wait for this card, but finally I got the GTX970 and i'm glad I did it.
Was expecting a price of 450-500€ max, but 600+ is just too much.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 27, 2015)

@NC37, those cross bridges were dropped with Hawaii, literally years ago - where have you been?!

And FTR, Hawaii and Fiji scale better in dual configuration using XDMA than sli. (Where supported).


----------



## Brusfantomet (Aug 27, 2015)

pedromvu said:


> The current performance per price king seems to be GTX 970 at around $330, this is the point where more performance starts to cost much more which is why GTX 980 is not a good deal, in an ideal world, 30% more performance than GTX 970 would cost $429 in order to have the same performance per price ratio, if AMD wanted to really beat Nvidia they could have gone for $500 or even a bit more if it really performs almost equal to 980 TI.



the R9 285 and R9290 is better at pref/price.

The nano, beeing a Fury X with lower clocks and same price as the Fury X will have a even lower pref/price ratio than the Fury X, will be interesting if it is lower than the Titan X.

Also, for the price of one 980 Ti i can get two 290X (or 390) here in Norway, and as long as CF works that is quite a lot faster than one 980 Ti


----------



## dj-electric (Aug 27, 2015)

You wanna go bankrupt? cuz that's how you go bankrupt


----------



## fynxer (Aug 27, 2015)

Another Motherf***ing Disappointment

AMD keeps rolling em out like hotcakes. AMD is now beyond the point of no return.

I cannot imagine that they will be able to compete with nVidias Pascal next year because what ever AMD do and how ever they do it, it will be a total failure and a major disappointment.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 27, 2015)

I don't see how this thing is going to perform 30% better than the 970 with that cooler.  If it does, it begs the question of why they put water on Fury X.  Did they need time to tweak something with the arch/chip in order to perform the way they wanted to?


----------



## Parn (Aug 27, 2015)

Considering the TDP of a full Fiji chip and this puny HSF on the Nano, my guess is the performance this card will suffer from throttling quite often. Remember what AMD said earlier (Up to 1000MHz core speed)? That's already an indication of what to expect. 

This "Faster than 980" may only be true for a few minutes before throttling kicks in. I really hope AMD is not trying to use the performance figure of those few minutes to justify the $650 price tag.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 27, 2015)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't see how this thing is going to perform 30% better than the 970 with that cooler.  If it does, it begs the question of why they put water on Fury X.  Did they need time to tweak something with the arch/chip in order to perform the way they wanted to?


If you look at the numbers they say, its at 4k. But another graph for a card that performs around 390x cause its only 10% faster then 290x its kinda hard to see how those numbers work out that way, but hey its AMD they claimed fury X was 20% faster then a 980ti which end up being incorrect.



Parn said:


> Considering the TDP of a full Fiji chip and this puny HSF on the Nano, my guess is the performance this card will suffer from throttling quite often. Remember what AMD said earlier (Up to 1000MHz core speed)? That's already an indication of what to expect.


That card won't run at 1000mhz and stick to a 175watt TDP, just not going to happen. more like 750-800mhz maybe but then its been claimed it will run normal around 75c with a 85c til it throttles. How legit are those claims, well they come from AMD so that could tell ya something.

Hope NDA is up in a few days so we can see what independent reviews have to say about those claims.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 27, 2015)

arbiter said:


> If you look at the numbers they say, its at 4k. But another graph for a card that performs around 390x cause its only 10% faster then 290x its kinda hard to see how those numbers work out that way, but hey its AMD they claimed fury X was 20% faster then a 980ti which end up being incorrect.



I don't recall them saying 20% faster than the Ti but I guess it really wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## buggalugs (Aug 27, 2015)

You guys are full of doom but Fury and FuryX are selling like hotcakes, they cant keep up with demand.

 Even at $650 for nano AMD will struggle with demand for the first few months. There is no business reason to sell them cheaper, when they cant keep up with demand at $650. It would actually be a very dumb and bad business decision to sell them cheaper at this point.

 Some of you guys also seem to be forgetting , this is the fastest card of all time in this form factor, and the best performance to watt card of all time. It also has new technology. IF Nvidia made a card with these kind of specs it would be $1,000 

 After the 980Ti, AMD have the next 3 fastest cards, and theres not much between 980Ti and FuryX anyway,  AMD's pricing is pretty standard for this performance. Pricing doesnt seem to be an issue when Nvidia release cards, but when AMD does it, its a problem for some reason, and AMD arent even as bad as Nvidia with their $1,000 and $1,200 cards. weird


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 27, 2015)

buggalugs said:


> You guys are full of doom but Fury and FuryX are selling like hotcakes, they cant keep up with demand.
> 
> There is no business reason to sell them cheaper, when they cant keep up with demand at $650. It would actually be a very dumb and bad business decision to sell them cheaper at this point.



While I am sure that people are not forgetting anvidia's price tags, I am not so sure that Fury and Fury X have that supply in the first place.

Just give numbers or proof that there are cards actually going to sale.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 27, 2015)

buggalugs said:


> You guys are full of doom but Fury and FuryX are selling like hotcakes, they cant keep up with demand.
> 
> Even at $650 for nano AMD will struggle with demand for the first few months. There is no business reason to sell them cheaper, when they cant keep up with demand at $650. It would actually be a very dumb and bad business decision to sell them cheaper at this point.



The reason they can't keep up with demand is that there were a grand total of 30,000 Fiji cards available at launch. The reason they aren't selling the cards cheaper is that they literally cannot; Fiji is massive and complex, and its yields are appalling (which ties back into availability). That's why we have the rebranded 290/X to cover lower price points - because not enough working Fiji chips get produced for those prices.



buggalugs said:


> Some of you guys also seem to be forgetting , this is the fastest card of all time in this form factor, and the best performance to watt card of all time.



According to AMD.



buggalugs said:


> After the 980Ti, AMD have the next 3 fastest cards, and theres not much between 980Ti and FuryX anyway,  AMD's pricing is pretty standard for this performance. Pricing doesnt seem to be an issue when Nvidia release cards, but when AMD does it, its a problem for some reason, and AMD arent even as bad as Nvidia with their $1,000 and $1,200 cards. weird



I agree completely that a $650 Fiji is much better value for money than a $1,000 Titan whatever-it's-called-this-time. I also believe that anyone who buys a Titan is a moron with too much cash. Unfortunately, as Apple has proven, you can make a very successful business selling overpriced products to cash-flush morons; all nVIDIA is doing with Titan is getting a piece of that moron pie.


----------



## wickedcricket (Aug 27, 2015)

Scrizz said:


> Obviously someone was smoking the good stuff....




Smoking??? You meant snorting and for that price it must have been a really good stuff...


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 27, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> According to AMD.



What do you think is faster ?

W1zzard should put a new review with R9 Nano soon, no ?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Aug 27, 2015)

Priced the same as a 980 Ti I should bloody well hope it's faster than a GTX 980.


----------



## 64K (Aug 27, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> What do you think is faster ?
> 
> W1zzard should put a new review with R9 Nano soon, no ?



I believe the NDA is lifted at 8:00 EST so we may see a review in about 20 minutes or so.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 27, 2015)

Management has gone completely mad at AMD. So, they put the fully enabled monster chip which needs water cooling in a SFF card, cripple it with aggressive power target in order to reach the advertised TDP thus bringing it down in terms of performance to GM204, a chip almost half of Fiji. To make matters worse, understandable somehow because they have to have some sort of a profit, they price it at 980Ti level. This is a boutique product made by AMD which is heading fast to become a boutique company.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Aug 27, 2015)

What AMD should do is not raise the price of their rebranded chips, but to make an entirely new one based on existing model, like what Nvidia did with their Maxwell, which is based on Kepler only better at power consumption & efficiency. If (and only IF) AMD did that before they released the R9 series cards, it would give Nvidia a really good competition. Sadly though, it didn't happen & thinking refurbishing old chips would keep them afloat. IMO, this isn't going to cut.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 27, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> I agree completely that a $650 Fiji is much better value for money than a $1,000 Titan whatever-it's-called-this-time. I also believe that anyone who buys a Titan is a moron with too much cash. Unfortunately, as Apple has proven, you can make a very successful business selling overpriced products to cash-flush morons; all nVIDIA is doing with Titan is getting a piece of that moron pie.


----------



## Basard (Aug 27, 2015)

im gonnna have a heart attack, it's 7:01 central! where's nano?! lol...


----------



## Lucas_ (Aug 27, 2015)

omg  AMD wont Recover Again  699 $ thats not Fair .


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> I told some other members but they keep arguing with me. In fact, after reading all your posts, it turns that you, guys, have the same opinion like me.
> 
> Everyone EXPECTS cheaper prices. 450$ is perfectly fine.
> 
> ...


You thought it would be $450 in that other thread...

I feel $549 would be fair since it performs like their $549 Fury for all intents and purposes. Much faster than those that were expecting 290x/390x performance though!!!!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 27, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I feel $549 would be fair since it performs like their $549 Fury for all intents and purposes. Much faster than those that were expecting 290x/390x performance though!!!!



AMD is contradicting itself left and right.  First they release a performance slide showing the Nano just barely beating a 290X, now they are pricing it super high and saying it performs better than a 980.  I'll wait the reviews and hope the reviewers are smart enough to see through AMD's trick and let the card heat up.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Aug 27, 2015)

$650 is kinda asking too much for those who wanted a cheap but well performing VGA card... guess GTX970 is still a noteworthy card for under $400 range...


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 27, 2015)

64K said:


> I believe the NDA is lifted at 8:00 EST so we may see a review in about 20 minutes or so.


The NDA seems to be September 10th. Which does not bode well.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 27, 2015)

Nokiron said:


> The NDA seems to be September 10th. Which does not bode well.



This may be the reason...

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-preview,1.html


----------



## Bytales (Aug 27, 2015)

Scrizz said:


> Obviously someone was smoking the good stuff....



You guys probably dont get that this is a top of the line chip, expensive to manufacture. >The price is to be expected. ANd i would have payed it but i got the fury X. Its the same.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 27, 2015)

It looks like this card is for the people who want/need itx sized video cards and you pay a premium for it.. Price/performance will be a failure if it's the measure you look at with this card..


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

Nokiron said:


> The NDA seems to be September 10th. Which does not bode well.


Why not?

We were told on the call that they are 'building up stock' essentially.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 27, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Why not?
> 
> We were told on the call that they are 'building up stock' essentially.



Because if you release a card, and then say "you aren't allowed to post reviews about it" it means you are trying to hide something.  It makes it seem like they are trying to get the suckers to just go out and buy the card at an inflated price that isn't justified by the performance and they don't want reviews showing the card isn't worth it.


----------



## Recus (Aug 27, 2015)

I love how argument "this is the smallest GPU" counterbalance beloved AMD fans argument "cheaper is better". lol

You can get one year old 970 Mini for $299.99 set game settings to low/medium and get 60 fps.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Because if you release a card, and then say "you aren't allowed to post reviews about it" it means you are trying to hide something.  It makes it seem like they are trying to get the suckers to just go out and buy the card at an inflated price that isn't justified by the performance and they don't want reviews showing the card isn't worth it.


It means reviewers dont have cards in hand yet. You wont be able to BUY a card until the 10th when reviews are allowed to be posted anyway. So, that seems to bunk that theory, no?

If it is true Fury levels give or take a percent or so, you are paying Fury X prices for it which doesn't seem right to me. I understand the premium for it as the technology is new, and it is the best of that market. But you have to admit, decent 4K performance that small is impressive. I hope prices come down to $550-$575. I think its fair to pay a bit of a premium for the smaller card.


----------



## KarymidoN (Aug 27, 2015)

RIP AMD, 650 bucks? 
Samsung please buy AMD. Only then will we have real competition in both processors, and in GPUs. Until then is watching Nvidia / Intel dominate the market and charge the price they want and deliver the performance they want, because the "biggest competitor" simply will not be able to overcome.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 27, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> This may be the reason...
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-preview,1.html



Not even a paper launch. Send some slides to the press, the card will follow sometime.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 27, 2015)

Well we all saw this coming in the last few days because its a full fledged Fiji core.  Really since this card has some limitations it should be priced around the $550 mark and the Fury regular should be $500.  They are trying to market it as a full Fiji air cooled card which is cool especially if we see some custom variants that cram a bit more in that form factor, however on the stock one with only 4+1+1 power phase (Versus 6+1+1 on Fury X) this is a weird price point to sell it at.


----------



## Schmuckley (Aug 27, 2015)

Butthurt everywhere from all the 970 fanboys here?
You know it's known across all the forums about that.


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Aug 27, 2015)

Recus said:


> I love how argument "this is the smallest GPU" counterbalance beloved AMD fans argument "cheaper is better". lol
> 
> You can get one year old 970 Mini for $299.99 set game settings to low/medium and get 60 fps.



You know something smells fishy when they are marketing the card as 4K able, but then comparing it against 1080/1440p cards. Not that the ANY card, currently on the market, is truly able to drive 4K with a decent amount of AA/AF.

And at the price, they want for it, it really should be compared to the rest of the big $$$ boys.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 27, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Butthurt everywhere from all the 970 fanboys here?
> You know it's known across all the forums about that.




......don't get why a 970 owner would care.........nano is in a higher tier at a much higher price........


----------



## Fx (Aug 27, 2015)

buggalugs said:


> You guys are full of doom but Fury and FuryX are selling like hotcakes, they cant keep up with demand.
> 
> Even at $650 for nano AMD will struggle with demand for the first few months. There is no business reason to sell them cheaper, when they cant keep up with demand at $650. It would actually be a very dumb and bad business decision to sell them cheaper at this point.
> 
> ...



The points you brought up are many that I also noticed. Thanks for bringing some logic to the thread. Many people do not critically think and just repeat others' sentiments.



Assimilator said:


> The reason they can't keep up with demand is that there were a grand total of 30,000 Fiji cards available at launch.



You misunderstand supply, demand and value, thus your point is invalid. The reason why is because shit will be shit. If a product is shit, then people won't buy it whether you offer a limited supply of 1,000 or an availability of 1,000,000. Obviously, people find value in this product at this price point for whatever reasons, e.g. form factor, coolness factor, reasonable performance, simply supporting AMD or all of the above.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 27, 2015)

How to woo buyers, AMD edition

1. Overhype a card, then say its delayed
2. After a while paper launch it and don't allow reviews
3. Price it 150-200$ more than its targeted performance counterpart

The perfect recipe for success.


----------



## theJesus (Aug 27, 2015)

This form factor is pretty pointless anyways IMO.  The primary use-case for SFF gaming rigs is in the living room, where you are probably going to place it in some sort of shelf on your TV stand.   The primary space-constraint in that situation is height, so often people end up either having to use half-height cases or buy a new stand (and the ones with more distance between each shelf are harder to find and more expensive from my experience).  So, from that perspective, this whole trend of Mini-ITX cubes that have small footprint for width/depth, but are still full-height, doesn't make much sense.  There is a reason that a lot of HTPC cases have traditionally been longer and half-height.  I really wish that somebody would put some time/effort into making a powerful half-height card; doesn't matter if it's long and takes up two slots.


----------



## Fx (Aug 27, 2015)

theJesus said:


> This form factor is pretty pointless anyways IMO.  The primary use-case for SFF gaming rigs is in the living room, where you are probably going to place it in some sort of shelf on your TV stand.   The primary space-constraint in that situation is height, so often people end up either having to use half-height cases or buy a new stand (and the ones with more distance between each shelf are harder to find and more expensive from my experience).  So, from that perspective, this whole trend of Mini-ITX cubes that have small footprint for width/depth, but are still full-height, doesn't make much sense.  There is a reason that a lot of HTPC cases have traditionally been longer and half-height.  I really wish that somebody would put some time/effort into making a powerful half-height card; doesn't matter if it's long and takes up two slots.



No. There is actually a current trend that is favoring enthusiast-level performance in smaller form factors for gaming and other demanding applications for their gaming rigs/workstations. Many people simply no longer want full ATX motherboards and large towers. This trend has traction at both home and business environments.

Also, for the living room, the SFF has been replaced by the UCFF due to the low power envelope and performance prowess of today's processors providing both CPU and GPU on one die package.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 27, 2015)

btarunr said:


> 30% faster than the GTX 970, according to the company


According to that slide it is 30% in those game than the 970 *Mini in 4K*... I can see that



btarunr said:


> *If what we're hearing is true*, then not only will the R9 Nano have the same core-config as the R9 Fury X, but also its price - US $649.99.


Ok, if not substantiated, probably best to not go off the deep-end on this.



Sony Xperia S said:


> Everyone EXPECTS cheaper prices.


True however a business can present boutique products, as long as production and cost while not exactly "traditional", as long a you can sell all you produce, while holding a semblance of profit, it's good.  What you don't want is to over produce.  At this point Fiji/HBM production is probably not anywhere perfected, although as long as the scrap rate is not "so" burdened to the bottom-line it become a heartache to sales, AMD should have no issue maintaining.  AMD is incurring valuable lessons and insight on mass producing interposer and HBM that surely offers long term dividends.    

I seems forums are being driving by unsubstantiated stuff, it's best to wait for the release, rather than throwing daggers around.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

Its 649... its full fury X with power limits. Its substantiated.

http://www.overclockers.com/amds-r9-nano-details-emerge-launch-imminent/

or look at the article from here today.


----------



## theJesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Fx said:


> No. There is actually a current trend that is favoring enthusiast-level performance in smaller form factors for gaming and other demanding applications for their gaming rigs/workstations. Many people simply no longer want full ATX motherboards and large towers. This trend has traction at both home and business environments.


In the business environments, from what I've seen, they typically don't care about graphics performance and will instead opt for UCFF.  For home environments, whether or not there are people who want a smaller box at their desk just because, it really doesn't serve as much utilitarian purpose.  It's great to have the option I guess, but I don't view it as a being necessitated by any common space-constraints like the small shelves of  a TV stand.


Fx said:


> Also, for the living room, the SFF has been replaced by the UCFF due to the low power envelope and performance prowess of today's processors providing both CPU and GPU on one die package.


While true for strict HTPCs that are just for media, I was thinking more of people who want a powerful gaming machine in their living-room to use with Steam's Big Picture mode or Steam OS.  If you can't fit the box on the shelf of your TV stand, then it doesn't matter whether it is a box or a tower, because either way it will have to sit on the floor next to the TV stand.  Or, at best, if your TV is wall-mounted and you don't have a center-channel speaker then you can sit it on top of the stand . . . or just fork out the cash for a better stand, but then you might not be able to afford the graphics card.


----------



## cyneater (Aug 27, 2015)

Have AMD gone back to PR ratings or what they think there processor / GPU's are like compared to a Pentium.

I would like to see AMD release something that I would like to buy pity there processors are over priced and there graphics cards and linux support don't go hand in hand.

They need to ban the weed at there office and maybe make something people want to buy at a decent price point.

AMD needs to re-brand even more with PR ratings!!! 

Just to get the few people who are on side off side !


----------



## Brusfantomet (Aug 27, 2015)

theJesus said:


> This form factor is pretty pointless anyways IMO.  The primary use-case for SFF gaming rigs is in the living room, where you are probably going to place it in some sort of shelf on your TV stand.   The primary space-constraint in that situation is height, so often people end up either having to use half-height cases or buy a new stand (and the ones with more distance between each shelf are harder to find and more expensive from my experience).  So, from that perspective, this whole trend of Mini-ITX cubes that have small footprint for width/depth, but are still full-height, doesn't make much sense.  There is a reason that a lot of HTPC cases have traditionally been longer and half-height.  I really wish that somebody would put some time/effort into making a powerful half-height card; doesn't matter if it's long and takes up two slots.


You are aware that there exist chassis that uses a flexible PCI-e extender to lay the GFX card flat like the motherboard? see the Node 202 as a example. Put a i7 6700 and a Fury nano in that with a 500 GB SSD and you have a  quite slim (88 mm high chasis) and potent setup that is going to play everything on a normal 1080p TV maxed out, a smal 970 would also work.


----------



## theJesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Brusfantomet said:


> You are aware that there exist chassis that uses a flexible PCI-e extender to lay the GFX card flat like the motherboard? see the Node 202 as a example. Put a i7 6700 and a Fury nano in that with a 500 GB SSD and you have a  quite slim (88 mm high chasis) and potent setup that is going to play everything on a normal 1080p TV maxed out, a smal 970 would also work.


This is true; I hadn't thought about that because such cases with riser cards weren't widely available back when I bought my HTPC chassis.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 27, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> I agree completely that a $650 Fiji is much better value for money than a $1,000 Titan whatever-it's-called-this-time. I also believe that anyone who buys a Titan is a moron with too much cash. Unfortunately, as Apple has proven, you can make a very successful business selling overpriced products to cash-flush morons; all nVIDIA is doing with Titan is getting a piece of that moron pie.


Fury X was gonna start at 850$ before Nvidia dropped the 980ti on the market at 650$, So i know its hard to admit nvidia gave you fury X at 650$ but it is a fact just like gtx970 forced prices down of the 290x.



newtekie1 said:


> AMD is contradicting itself left and right. First they release a performance slide showing the Nano just barely beating a 290X, now they are pricing it super high and saying it performs better than a 980. I'll wait the reviews and hope the reviewers are smart enough to see through AMD's trick and let the card heat up.


Yea AMD made the mistake of releasing the settings they used for Fury x vs 980ti during that anouncement so people could see where AMD cheated a bit and turned off anything that wasn't using gpu's shaders. I bet they pulled same thing in those benchmarks.



Recus said:


> I love how argument "this is the smallest GPU" counterbalance beloved AMD fans argument "cheaper is better". lol
> You can get one year old 970 Mini for $299.99 set game settings to low/medium and get 60 fps.





5DVX0130 said:


> You know something smells fishy when they are marketing the card as 4K able, but then comparing it against 1080/1440p cards. Not that the ANY card, currently on the market, is truly able to drive 4K with a decent amount of AA/AF.


I can't say AA is a requirement as its best thing to have off for fps but AF is pretty much minimum inpact fps wise but sad how they have it mostly all turned off cept in 1 game cause they know it will hurt their performance vs what is pretty much stricly 1080p card.



yogurt_21 said:


> How to woo buyers, AMD edition
> 1. Overhype a card, then say its delayed
> 2. After a while paper launch it and don't allow reviews
> 3. Price it 150-200$ more than its targeted performance counterpart
> The perfect recipe for success.


Since its Size its counter part is gtx970 and price gap is up to 360$ difference since yesturday can get a mini 970 for 290$ on newegg.


----------



## Dieinafire (Aug 28, 2015)

With all the hype amd is trying to put on this card it reminds me of how they were with Fury X.  I have a feeling we will all be disappointed.  Amd the company that loves to disappoint


----------



## okidna (Aug 28, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> With all the hype amd is trying to put on this card it reminds me of how they were with Fury X.  I have a feeling we will all be disappointed.  Amd the company that loves to disappoint



Well, it's in their name. *AMD* = *A*dvanced *M*astery of *D*isappointment.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Aug 28, 2015)

sad case for AMD really... if they really wanted to bring the fight to Nvidia, they should have created a fresh new chip based on what the Fury X is using, without power limits & improved power consumption minus all that marketing gimmick BS (and unrealistic paper scores) that everyone is tired of it. Too bad they're not planning for such a plan & instead are on the losing end with a drop in shares along with a few hundreds, if not thousands of disappointed loyalists leaving the red camp. I was expecting something great from them & I just lost all my hopes on them, thinking they can keep the competition fierce enough for Nvidia. Now that Nvidia has their affordable GTX950, touted as "best affordable 1080p gaming card for under $180", AMD's R7 range isn't gonna cut, despite a slew of price cuts AMD is famous for.


----------



## 64K (Aug 28, 2015)

The best way to not be disappointed when the Nano does launch and reviews show up is to not over expect. In the review here for the Fury X full Fiji the card drew an average of 246 watts and a peak of 280 watts. The blurb about "up to 1000 MHz" for the full Fiji Nano could mean anything. It might be able to ramp up to 1000 MHz for a few seconds but that doesn't tell you what your average gaming performance will be. I'm expecting it will be able to sustain 850-900 MHz but I could be wrong. This is what happens when you announce a card and specs when it won't launch until 2 weeks later. People naturally want to talk about new hardware, myself included, but who knows until it's thoroughly tested which it will get here when AMD sends TPU a card.

As far as the price. That's a disappointment already. AMD certainly could have knocked the price of the Fury X water cooler off of the Nano at least.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 28, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> "best affordable 1080p gaming card for under $180"



Nothing under a 970 or 290 should be considered best for 1080.  Anything under that and your are going to have to start neutering settings.



64K said:


> AMD certainly could have knocked the price of the Fury X water cooler off of the Nano at least.



My guess is that these are the absolutely best binned Fury parts.  There seems to be no other way to have any hopes at maintaining decent clocks with that type of power envelope.  So instead of paying for the AIO, you are paying for the size, well lack of rather.  I am still very intrigued to see how this performs in this package.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 28, 2015)

You know how when you overclock most anything, you get an increase in Mhz with stock V and then you slowly push the V to get more Mhz. There's a point where the V increase is too much for the small increase of Mhz you get and heat and power consumption sky rockets. If the Fury X had to be pushed to inefficient voltage to get a good clock to compete with NVidia then the Nano may not be a pipe dream and might have stable clocks with the 175W TDP.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> If the Fury X had to be pushed to inefficient voltage to get a good clock to compete with NVidia then the Nano may not be a pipe dream and might have stable clocks with the 175W TDP.


Yay! More thinking!!

In the briefing we were told that to reach Fury X speeds, for that 10% more performance, there is a 50% increase in power use.

That said, they also mentioned that 'light loads' it would reach 1K, but with heavy loads you are looking around 950MHz... again assuming temps are in order. You can also raise the power limit too I would imagine...


----------



## arbiter (Aug 28, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Yay! More thinking!!
> 
> In the briefing we were told that to reach Fury X speeds, for that 10% more performance, there is a 50% increase in power use.
> 
> That said, they also mentioned that 'light loads' it would reach 1K, but with heavy loads you are looking around 950MHz... again assuming temps are in order. You can also raise the power limit too I would imagine...


950 is def a pipe dream, i would expect more like 800-850 maybe even lower since they claim its only around 10% faster then a 290x.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 28, 2015)

arbiter said:


> 950 is def a pipe dream, i would expect more like 800-850 maybe even lower since they claim its only around 10% faster then a 290x.



First problem is that they can't make up their minds what it is faster than.  I think this is one of the most interesting card releases in a while.  I think we should start taking bets on which one of their stories it will be.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2015)

I never heard them claim it was 10% faster than a 290x. "Significantly faster" is what they were saying. And a Fury, what they SAID this would perform like, is more than 10% faster than a 290x/390x.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 28, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I never heard them claim it was 10% faster than a 290x. "Significantly faster" is what they were saying. And a Fury, what they SAID this would perform like, is more than 10% faster than a 290x/390x.



I think he may be referencing the slides the other day that showed it between the 390 and 390x.  On the other had, more powerful than the 980 would be close to good enough for significantly.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2015)

390 and 390x are 290 and 290x with a clock and vram bump... must have missed those?


----------



## 64K (Aug 28, 2015)

The Fury X comes stock with a core clock of 1050 MHz and the sample sent to TPU could be overclocked to 1150 MHz and tested in BF3. If the Nano can be overclocked to 1150 MHz and be stable then it is worth the same price as the Fury X. Heavily binned chips helps but can it go that far without the GPU throttling back on the clocks? That is one question the reviewers will have an answer for.

If it can't be pushed that far and the power savings are important to the customer then I could understand taking a hit on performance and buying the Nano for the same $650 as the Fury X.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 28, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I never heard them claim it was 10% faster than a 290x. "Significantly faster" is what they were saying. And a Fury, what they SAID this would perform like, is more than 10% faster than a 290x/390x.


The Significantly faster was the claim at the fury X announcement few months ago. If Significantly faster is 10% then all intel cpu's last few generation's have been "Significantly faster". This is most recent claim for it,





the footnote is vs a 290x using intel cpu.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2015)

I am not sure I buy that slide is from AMD... they are clear that it is not named Fury Nano.... But R9 Nano.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Aug 29, 2015)

@moproblems99: for it's class & range below $180 as I am not comparing it with higher tier cards like the R9 290 or a GTX970. Reason why I said so is for those who wanted something fast while keeping their wallet away from drying out, just to play games like Dota 2, LoL, SC2 or HotS since these games are more demanding by the masses than graphic-crunching games like GTAV, for example. Remember, it's a budget-friendly card that replaces the GTX750 & it's Ti variant where it falls short due to power limits & OCing capabilities.


----------



## yun4l (Sep 3, 2015)

its about 100k yen in JAPAN , so ...  

http://www.ask-corp.jp/news/2015/09/sapphire-r9-nano-4g-hbm.html


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 3, 2015)

water cool this card with aftermarket.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 3, 2015)

eidairaman1 said:


> water cool this card with aftermarket.


Questionable if that will help any since its TDP limited to 175watts. Card would still throttle reguardless.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 3, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Questionable if that will help any since its TDP limited to 175watts. Card would still throttle reguardless.


It would have, like most all AMD cards, a power limit slider to raise.


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 3, 2015)

Someone at AMD is suffering from an Anal/Cranial inversion.

This price is unrealistic at best. I think that they want to make money from these Nano cards, but supply problems keep them from selling in large quantities.
So they jack the price way up on the ones that they _do_ have for sale. (hoping that the usual fools will buy at the inflated prices)

I will not even consider them at anywhere near these prices.


----------



## arbiter (Sep 4, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> Someone at AMD is suffering from an Anal/Cranial inversion.
> 
> This price is unrealistic at best. I think that they want to make money from these Nano cards, but supply problems keep them from selling in large quantities.
> So they jack the price way up on the ones that they _do_ have for sale. (hoping that the usual fools will buy at the inflated prices)
> ...


Nano is pretty much a heavily binned Fury X chip. The Best of the Best power wise chips and lowest voltage ones. Should be more of a shock they are not 700+.


----------

