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

[Frick]

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

 

[the54thvoid]

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,....

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]

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

 

[Bad Bad Bear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Xzibit]

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]

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

They don't need bridges anymore.

 

[arbiter]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

 

[fynxer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.