Fury Nano, biggest bang in smallest package.. FPS/inch baby!

[Silverforce11]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1565417/dglee-new-r9-nano-pictures-and-unigine-heaven-results-from-amd

Some funny leaks from AMD directly, they are making fun of the numbers with their own leaks.

FPS/inch & FPS/watt metrics.

Basically ~30% above R290X in Unigine 4K at ~157W vs ~242W (R290X). That would fit within their typical higher board TDPs, 175 vs 275/300W.

AMD seems pretty proud of Nano, getting amazing perf/w from it, most likely a combination of binning good chips, but under-volting and down-clocking a full-die.

My R290s when undervolted/downclock to ~880, uses about 150W in games, losing about 10% performance but using a lot less power. So definitely I think GCN is capable of achieving excellent perf/w if tuned for that metric.

If priced well I think its a winner for this gen. Hopefully they don't go full premium for the form factor. -_-

Edit: Some of us speculated on why volume of Fury is low and we suspected HBM yields or AIO coolers etc, but it seems its likely the interposer/TSVs tech. Basically they've been beta testing and only now go volume production.
http://www.techpowerup.com/214444/u...rocess-that-enables-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x.html

 

[Ancalagon44]

Looks good. I wonder when we will see the actual launch of these cards.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Performance per form factor and performance per watt is nice but AMD will be making some pretty low margins since GCN is weaker in performance per die space ...

 

[cen1]

I am shopping for 1440p card this autumn. My current choice is 290/390 but if Nano is priced right it could be a contender. Could do a really nice small build with that.

 

[Silverforce11]

Performance per form factor and performance per watt is nice but AMD will be making some pretty low margins since GCN is weaker in performance per die space ...

GM200 v Fiji are similar die sizes. The only thing that may affect their margins are: HBM & Interposer stacking. But they may save some $ on the board, less layers due to intergrated MC on the package, no need for 512bit bus to GDDR5.

Honestly who knows and as a gamer, I don't care about their margins. I'm not a shareholder.

 

[RussianSensation]

So if Nano is 4 fps / inch and it's 6 inches, it's actually faster than Fury X?

Let's wait for real reviews as these synthetic benches are cherry-picking galore.

Performance per form factor and performance per watt is nice but AMD will be making some pretty low margins since GCN is weaker in performance per die space ...

Do you have a source for that? AMD's margins are nowhere near NV's levels but traditionally their GPU division is > 30%. Since now the GPU revenue/income is well below 50%, it's only natural their gross margins will be below 30% as the embedded businesses has margins closer to 20%.

300mm wafer with 24.0x24.0mm die size gives us 86 die.
http://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/

TSMC announced a 10% reduction in wafer prices which were about $4400-4500, so we are at $4000.

Let's assume a yield of only 30% => 86 x 30% = 25.8. Let's even round down to 25 die.

$4000 / 25 = $160

PCB + VRM + AIO CLC = $80

Let's add $80 for HBM
--------------
$320

30% margin => $96 per package => $416

Fury sells for $550 and Fury X for $650.

I guess 30% margins is low if we compare them to Apple, Intel and NV. AMD's problem is that even with 30-35% margins, their R&D and interest expense on the debt are too high. In the context of margins themselves, most companies in the world would love 30-35%. But in the case of Nano, it's probably a cut down die or a die that couldn't meet Fury or Fury X specs so the yield isn't coming from the 30% section but from the failed section, meaning some fraction of the remaining 70% (or w/e the number is).

 

[3DVagabond]

So if Nano is 4 fps / inch and it's 6 inches, it's actually faster than Fury X?

Let's wait for real reviews as these synthetic benches are cherry-picking galore.



Do you have a source for that? AMD's margins are nowhere near NV's levels but traditionally their GPU division is > 30%. Since now the GPU revenue/income is well below 50%, it's only natural their gross margins will be below 30% as the embedded businesses has margins closer to 20%.

300mm wafer with 24.0x24.0mm die size gives us 86 die.
http://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/

TSMC announced a 10% reduction in wafer prices which were about $4400-4500, so we are at $4000.

Let's assume a yield of only 30% => 86 x 30% = 25.8. Let's even round down to 25 die.

$4000 / 25 = $160

PCB + VRM + AIO CLC = $80

Let's add $80 for HBM
--------------
$320

30% margin => $96 per package => $416

Fury sells for $550 and Fury X for $650.

I guess 30% margins is low if we compare them to Apple, Intel and NV. AMD's problem is that even with 30-35% margins, their R&D and interest expense on the debt are too high. In the context of margins themselves, most companies in the world would love 30-35%. But in the case of Nano, it's probably a cut down die or a die that couldn't meet Fury or Fury X specs so the yield isn't coming from the 30% section but from the failed section, meaning some fraction of the remaining 70% (or w/e the number is).

You are confusing margins with markup again. $320 cost 30% margin = $457

 

[Kallogan]

"30% more perf than 290x at 157W at 4K"

but probably not so much at 1080p or 1440p, being only faster at 4K while barely giving playable framerates at that rez don't matter much in the end.

very nice little card though it seems, very excited about it

 

[3DVagabond]

"30% more perf than 290x at 157W at 4K"

but probably not so much at 1080p or 1440p, being only faster at 4K while barely giving playable framerates at that rez don't matter much in the end.

very nice little card though it seems, very excited about it

I'm not sure where you are deriving this from. Fury maintains about the same lead over the 290X @1080 as it does at 4K. The 290X is not bandwidth limited @ 4K like some designs are. It scales fine at that res.

 

[Shehriazad]

Can't wait for it...I feel like I will not regret waiting for that card. I was suspicious of the Fury/X...but that Nano sparked my interest the day it was first mentioned.

I hope that it's "only" $400-$450 which would make this a big win for me. If the fan isn't insanely loud this might be my first reference card since...I dunno....2006? xD Either way, this is gonna be my card for 3440 x 1440P (seriously, how is that not the best resolution ever? Sounds so nice when saying it. Screw 4K XD)

 

[tential]

Can't wait for it...I feel like I will not regret waiting for that card. I was suspicious of the Fury/X...but that Nano sparked my interest the day it was first mentioned.

I hope that it's "only" $400-$450 which would make this a big win for me. If the fan isn't insanely loud this might be my first reference card since...I dunno....2006? xD Either way, this is gonna be my card for 3440 x 1440P (seriously, how is that not the best resolution ever? Sounds so nice when saying it. Screw 4K XD)

Can you explain how you would think fury nano slots into amds current card lineup at the $450 price level? I won't even begin to destroy why $400 wouldn't work.

I haven't seen many good pricing explanations yet for this card.

Edit:
Side note, no 1440p sounds so ugly I want to womp it with a baseball bat. I don't even want to use my vsr at that resolution. I literally want a new card so I can move away from 1440p vsr forever. 4k. Now that sounds ballin. Heh, I was about to get an r9 290 for 180 but now that I think about it, fury nano does sound like fun. Less noise, less heat than my current card I wonder if it crossfires lol.... I'm interested in the benches and what price it arrives at but I just can't see it fitting into amds lineup at a cheap price.

 

[tviceman]

So if Nano is 4 fps / inch and it's 6 inches, it's actually faster than Fury X?

Let's wait for real reviews as these synthetic benches are cherry-picking galore.

ding ding ding

 

[Shehriazad]

*snip*

R9 390X can be gotten for like $420-$430 right now. It's the card you can buy if you need 8gigs for "kinda cheap".
I expect it to actually slightly drop a little more and be at $400 in a few weeks.

Fury is supposed to be available at $550, it's a bit spotty right now, but if you search you can actually find it at that price. I don't expect that price to move anytime soon.

Since the performance will be a bit below the R9 Fury, $450 would be a nice spot for it. It would sit between the GTX 970 and 980. That's a price area where it can actually compete. (Like, you actually want 4GB and more performance than a 970, but can't quite dish out the cash for the 980? There you go)

If AMD placed that card @ $500...they'd shoot themselves in the foot. The Nano will not be able to win over a 980 just like that.


Plus: Fury X = 650, Fury = 550, Nano = 450....this somehow sounds like it could make sense...no? :[] If it's 500 instead of 450... I would expect the card to be a deadweight. AMD would probably be aware of that possibility as well.


Edit: $400 is just my personal little dream, but I do expect $450 to be a thing. And why wouldn't it be? Anyone having $500+ to spend is gonna go 980 or Fury.

 

[Silverforce11]

390X should be back to $399, it doesn't offer much more above the 390, which is fine at $329.

This gives room for Nano at ~$499.

 

[tential]

R9 390X can be gotten for like $420-$430 right now. It's the card you can buy if you need 8gigs for "kinda cheap".
I expect it to actually slightly drop a little more and be at $400 in a few weeks.

Fury is supposed to be available at $550, it's a bit spotty right now, but if you search you can actually find it at that price. I don't expect that price to move anytime soon.

Since the performance will be a bit below the R9 Fury, $450 would be a nice spot for it. It would sit between the GTX 970 and 980. That's a price area where it can actually compete. (Like, you actually want 4GB and more performance than a 970, but can't quite dish out the cash for the 980? There you go)

If AMD placed that card @ $500...they'd shoot themselves in the foot. The Nano will not be able to win over a 980 just like that.


Plus: Fury X = 650, Fury = 550, Nano = 450....this somehow sounds like it could make sense...no? :[] If it's 500 instead of 450... I would expect the card to be a deadweight. AMD would probably be aware of that possibility as well.


Edit: $400 is just my personal little dream, but I do expect $450 to be a thing. And why wouldn't it be? Anyone having $500+ to spend is gonna go 980 or Fury.

So let me get this straight.

Right now
$650
GTX 980 Ti
Fury X

$550
Fury

$500
GTX 980

$450 (Proposed)
Fury Nano

$420
R9 390x

$(Not really relevant to the discussion)
R9 290

$320
GTX 970
---------------
Call me old fashioned, but I generally don't launch 3 products to compete against 1 product....
Was the GTX 980 somehow just so amazingly priced/performed so well that AMD decided to use 3 products to compete with it?

 

[myocardia]

So let me get this straight.

Right now
$650
GTX 980 Ti
Fury X

$550
Fury

$500
GTX 980

$450 (Proposed)
Fury Nano

$420
R9 390x

Those all make perfect sense, assuming they move the over-priced 390X down to the $389-$399 spot, where it should have been all along.

 

[Shehriazad]

So let me get this straight.

Right now
$650
GTX 980 Ti
Fury X

$550
Fury

$500
GTX 980

$450 (Proposed)
Fury Nano

$420
R9 390x

$(Not really relevant to the discussion)
R9 290

$320
GTX 970
---------------
Call me old fashioned, but I generally don't launch 3 products to compete against 1 product....
Was the GTX 980 somehow just so amazingly priced/performed so well that AMD decided to use 3 products to compete with it?

Yea, the performance I expect would put it between 970 and 980, anyway....a space that is insanely wide open. (Especially looking at it from a price perspective).

Putting it in direct competition with the 980 by putting it up for the same price will make it unattractive for a lot people. $450 would be the sweetspot.

We can't expect it to be 970 pricerange...if it was, AMD would cannibalize its' own market, and I doubt that they have the volume to back up such a bold move! (Although it would be interesting to see if they could actually pull it off...Nano for $320 would definitely shake up the market)


As for competition to the 980/Ti...Fiji just happened to be in that performance spot xD. But yea, the lower AMD can price the Nano...the more of a monster product do we actually get. This card has the potential to not only eat up AMDs own market...but also Make some of those GTX 970 people and the ITX crowds' share.

But then again...neither price nor volume will match...so it will have to end up as "inbetween" card for 970/980.
It will make a great 1080/1440/1600P card, just not anything above that.

 

[tential]

Yea, the performance I expect would put it between 970 and 980, anyway....a space that is insanely wide open. (Especially looking at it from a price perspective).

Putting it in direct competition with the 980 by putting it up for the same price will make it unattractive for a lot people. $450 would be the sweetspot.

We can't expect it to be 970 pricerange...if it was, AMD would cannibalize its' own market, and I doubt that they have the volume to back up such a bold move! (Although it would be interesting to see if they could actually pull it off...Nano for $320 would definitely shake up the market)


As for competition to the 980/Ti...Fiji just happened to be in that performance spot xD. But yea, the lower AMD can price the Nano...the more of a monster product do we actually get. This card has the potential to not only eat up AMDs own market...but also Make some of those GTX 970 people and the ITX crowds' share.

But then again...neither price nor volume will match...so it will have to end up as "inbetween" card for 970/980.
It will make a great 1080/1440/1600P card, just not anything above that.

Sorry but are you serious or did you not just read what I posted?

Fury Nano, R9 390x, and R9 390 are slotted between the GTX 980 and GTX 970? How is that insanely wide open to you?

I don't even.....

Ya'll are hilarious with your wishful thinking. You want the Full R9 Fury X, in a R9 Nano package, for LESS than the R9 Fury (cutdown) card.

Ok....

 

[Krteq]

Some info about Nano on Korean site - http://iyd.kr/756

 

[NTMBK]

Some info about Nano on Korean site - http://iyd.kr/756

Well that link doesn't look suspicious at all.

Anyone braver than me want to click on it?

 

[Krteq]

Meh, same info in Czech language - http://diit.cz/clanek/radeon-fury-nano-fotografie

 

[Azix]

Ya'll are hilarious with your wishful thinking. You want the Full R9 Fury X, in a R9 Nano package, for LESS than the R9 Fury (cutdown) card.

Ok....

Can be less. A fury is a Fury x. same chip same cost, doesn't matter if its cut down (though there might be a difference if the process to disable defective parts of the chip adds cost). There is a range of prices that would suffice for the chip. The nano could be full chips that don't do the stock fury X clocks well. Could be perfectly fine fury X chips downclocked and cheaper due to cheap cooling. It should be slower than the Fury but the form factor might mean price premium.

All I will speculate on is performance and it better be faster than a 980 most of the time. A lower price would pretty much kill that card and send it to <450 minimum. Not to worry though since nvidia fans will still buy the more expensive 980 if that were the case.

 

[Elixer]

All I will speculate on is performance and it better be faster than a 980 most of the time. A lower price would pretty much kill that card and send it to <450 minimum. Not to worry though since nvidia fans will still buy the more expensive 980 if that were the case.

Fury is in 980 class, so, having Nano in the same class makes no sense at all.
It is either going to compete against the 970 (though, the 390x does that as well), or, it is going to be a premium product with a premium price tag.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Nano will be slower than GTX 980, probably just as fast as a 290x
Mark my words

 

[Greenlepricon]

I can't see the nano being the same speeds as a 290X considering the R9 390 fills that gap already. A nice middle ground between the 390X/980 and R9 Fury seems like the place to be.

Judging by the expected clockspeed of ~800Mhz and the fact that the Fury cards don't seem to be shader limited, I would say this isn't a bad guess. If it can overclock to 1GHz or higher (although the cooling worries me), then it would definitely be an interesting card.