This is AMD preparing for damage control.
This is AMD knowing that the R9 Nano will completely suck in the performance/dollar chart TPU make.
This is AMD knowing that the R9 Nano will be measured extremely close to GTX 970 Mini ITX in 1080p and 1440p and they will not be able to defend the BS $650 price point for the card when the GTX 970 Mini ITX cost $300.
You saw the same damage control when they refused to give TechReport samples, because TR measured frame times where 980Ti did much better overall than Fury X. And you saw the same damage control with refusing HardOCP any samples because they said that a factory overclocked GTX 980 with much better cooling than stock 980 can compete against Fury (non X) in most cases.
You saw the signs that the R9 Nano will be quite slower than Fury and Fury X in the
pre release Far Cry 4 benchmark from AMD where they didnt seem to test the Nano with BS 0xAF settings. We all know Fury and Fury X are quite close, and since Nano is so far behind Fury X here, one can suspect the Nano of falling down to GTX 980 level, perhaps slower. Which ultimately moves it towards GTX 970 ITX performance. Which cost under half the price.
AMD know the Nano is overpriced beyond almost anything out there, and try to do damage control by handpicking biased reviewers or those that doesnt make accurate graphs which is easy to conclude with, like TPU does.
We all know what you are trying to pull on us AMD. The truth will unfortunately for you come out eventually. And just like Fury X, it will be another overpriced card. Its not our fault that you decided to use HBM before yields was good enough to drive the price down. The expense should come out of your pocket, not from the customers. Ultimately the HBM didnt show much gains if any vs GDDR5 cards, so this is entirely your fault. Just like the missed GPU launch time times, the failed CPU architectures, and the reputation wrecking decision to think you could cover up the handpicking of reviewers.
.
