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

RecusI 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. :laugh:

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.

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

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

buggalugsYou 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

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.

AssimilatorThe 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.

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.

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.

theJesusThis 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.

btarunr30% 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

btarunrIf 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 SEveryone 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.

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

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

or look at the article from here today.

FxNo. 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.

FxAlso, 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.

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 !

theJesusThis 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.

BrusfantometYou 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.

AssimilatorI 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.

newtekie1AMD 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.

RecusI 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. :laugh:

5DVX0130You 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_21How 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.

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

DieinafireWith 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 = Advanced Mastery of Disappointment.

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.

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.

Tsukiyomi91"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.

64KAMD 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.

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.

LightningJRIf 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...

EarthDogYay! 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.

arbiter950 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.

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.

EarthDogI 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.