I sincerely doubt that this will be priced to compete with the 960. If this thing has world beating perf/W, they will try to charge a premium for it. "The fastest card you can fit in a Steambox!" And let's face it, it's still a massive die, with HBM attached. There's a limit to how low you can price it and still turn a profit.
My guess is that it will cost the same as Fury (non X).
Nano needs to be very compelling in price because the rest of the 300 series is a joke at those prices.
Nano needs to make people who think "hmm, should I get a 970?" think twice. As such it cannot be priced anywhere close to $500, that's way out of the optimal $ segment.
Depends on the perf really & how close to the 980 it ends being, besides people will still buy the "gimped" 970 mainly because it's Nvidia & best VFM option in their lineup. The only thing going for the nano atm, besides the perf which is still unknown, is it's eerily small size thus making it great for HTPC & certain SFF prebuilt systems.Nano needs to be very compelling in price because the rest of the 300 series is a joke at those prices.
Nano needs to make people who think "hmm, should I get a 970?" think twice. As such it cannot be priced anywhere close to $500, that's way out of the optimal $ segment.
Depends on the perf really & how close to the 980 it ends being, besides people will still buy the "gimped" 970 mainly because it's Nvidia & best VFM option in their lineup. The only thing going for the nano atm, besides the perf which is still unknown, is it's eerily small size thus making it great for HTPC & certain SFF prebuilt systems.
Since you have no idea of the performance level of the Nano, saying they can't price it near $500 is completely meaningless.Nano needs to be very compelling in price because the rest of the 300 series is a joke at those prices.
Nano needs to make people who think "hmm, should I get a 970?" think twice. As such it cannot be priced anywhere close to $500, that's way out of the optimal $ segment.
Once again, we'll have to wait for official benchmarks to see how the 390/X performs before we can have an informed opinion on pricing relative to other cards. Why do you keep speculating so wildly? I'm pretty sure the people at AMD know the video market a bit better than any of us armchair quarterbacks. Let's just wait for the reviews to come in before declaring a winner.That's my point, the 970 is great VFM but if Nano comes in at $399-$429 with 20% faster than 980 performance... I'm sure many people who would consider buying a 970 would think twice.
Obviously the 390/X prices are temporary and due for a major drop, because there's no way they are going to move volume with R290/X with 8GB vram for $329/429.
That's my point, the 970 is great VFM but if Nano comes in at $399-$429 with 20% faster than 980 performance... I'm sure many people who would consider buying a 970 would think twice.
Obviously the 390/X prices are temporary and due for a major drop, because there's no way they are going to move volume with R290/X with 8GB vram for $329/429.
Except the Nano is most likely going to be flawed Fury cards that they otherwise would've thrown away. Not saying that's for sure cheaper.
On another note, I'm actually wondering why they didn't make THIS the 390X. That would've really sent a message.
I wonder if we could unlock nano/fury to fury/XI'm not convinced it will have disabled shaders- to get the best power efficiency, they would be best leaving all shaders enabled and clocking super low.
Nano will do that against the GTX 980
They probably expect to sell higher numbers of Nano than Fury/Fury X cards and need more time to stockpile inventory for a hard launch.This should have been a launch card.
I wonder if we could unlock nano/fury to fury/X
They probably expect to sell higher numbers of Nano than Fury/Fury X cards and need more time to stockpile inventory for a hard launch.
Why would they try to target a card that to some is a horrible price/perf card and way overpriced?
Because they know the gtx980's price is gonna drop and squash the 390x?
I'd expect street prices for AMD's lineup to beat nVidia at every price point. It's the only way they're going to sell thanks to nV's marketing.
I seriously doubt it's a fully enabled chip (super low clocked Fury X ) but if it is then AIB solutions can put it beyond stock 980, in terms of raw performance, also as we've seen with the 750/Ti the board partners can include additional power connectors if the particular GPU needs it.There wont be any unlocking to do if its a fully enabled chip at lower clocks. If it is fully enabled but with the clocks much lower, its highly unlikely you would be able to clock it too much due to power constraints. It has a single 8 pin power connector, not 2x 8 pin like big fury.
Yea...who even says AMD would allow board partners to mess with the R9?
But I am obviously skeptical that the R9 Nano would be a full Fiji with lower clocks...because then everyone could just ghetto mod their own Fury X at a way lower price.
SOMETHING is gonna be disabled...at least it's not gonna be the HBM, for obvious reasons.
This.
With lower-binned chips you could just ramp-up voltage and viola! Fury pro or X (if it matched either in useable ROPs/shaders). Its possible, but would undercut their more premium products without something disabled.
Who knows tho.....maybe the next 9500pro?