Fury Nano: First results in!

[Silverforce11]

It's coming soon but here's the first source I found that's credible.

http://www.golem.de/news/grafikkarte-amd-benchmarks-sehen-r9-nano-vor-der-r9-290x-1508-115897.html

Slightly above R290X, a lot better perf/w. As expected.

Rumor true, Full Fiji running 850mhz.

Price? Current rumor is $449 to $499. I hope its true and they don't insist on a premium for form factor, cos that would be BS. $449 would make for a very sweet deal.

Also, it would make for a very very good ghetto AIO mod, with a water cooler strapped on, clock it up to 1ghz (Asus Fury is 213W and stable 1ghz) and that's a lot of perf for cheap.

 

[NTMBK]

I still don't buy that price rumour. It's a fully enabled chip, binned to work at a lower voltage than the Fury X. The Fury is the cheap chip, this is the premium perf/W monster.

 

[Silverforce11]

I still don't buy that price rumour. It's a fully enabled chip, binned to work at a lower voltage than the Fury X. The Fury is the cheap chip, this is the premium perf/W monster.

I think they may have it wrong if they think perf/w or form factor deserves a premium.

A 980 blower works better for a mITX, since it exhausts the heat. The size might help some builds, but there's many cases now that support 10 inch GPUs.

A 980 is about 11% above R290X at 1440p. This so far seems to be in the same ballpark. Nano won't have a major perf/w win over the 980 either.

Fury isn't cheap. It's $100 less, $550 vs $650, it's ~9% slower. Not exactly an amazing bang for buck to downgrade from a Fury X, certainly considering losing the water rad exhausting heat out the case, ie. advantage of water.

 

[NTMBK]

It's a product that's significantly more difficult to make than the Fury. No disabled CUs, tighter voltage bins. Why the heck would they price it lower?

I would expect it to be priced around the same as the Fury X.

 

[atticus14]

I think they may have it wrong if they think perf/w or form factor deserves a premium.

everything powerful yet smaller, tends to cost more, laptops, phones, etc... If you want the best performance for a niche role, you almost always have to pay a premium.

Even in the past on a smaller scale we've seen it with GPUs, single slot GPUs and some smaller GPUs have held a small premium despite being worse all around from what I've seen.

we'll see what the market accepts for AMD in particular, if nvidia did something similar I would say it would definitely cost way more and yet still sale.

 

[3DVagabond]

Politics aside, I'm glad to see the fins running the length of the card. Can be used to best benefit in cases with 90° rotated mobo like Silverstone (Sorry, I'm a bit of a Silverstone fanboy. Really like their cases.)

 

[flopper]

It's coming soon but here's the first source I found that's credible.

http://www.golem.de/news/grafikkarte-amd-benchmarks-sehen-r9-nano-vor-der-r9-290x-1508-115897.html

Slightly above R290X, a lot better perf/w. As expected.

Rumor true, Full Fiji running 850mhz.

Price? Current rumor is $449 to $499. I hope its true and they don't insist on a premium for form factor, cos that would be BS. $449 would make for a very sweet deal.

Also, it would make for a very very good ghetto AIO mod, with a water cooler strapped on, clock it up to 1ghz (Asus Fury is 213W and stable 1ghz) and that's a lot of perf for cheap.

cool, good.

I await the Nano as I have no rush to buy stuff so hopefully this card is priced decently

 

[you2]

So this is slower than a 390 but nearly 2x the price ?

 

[Techhog]

It's a product that's significantly more difficult to make than the Fury. No disabled CUs, tighter voltage bins. Why the heck would they price it lower?

I would expect it to be priced around the same as the Fury X.

Why would they even bother releasing it if they had to do that?

 

[Techhog]

So this is slower than a 390 but nearly 2x the price ?

Where the hell are you getting that idea from?

 

[Silverforce11]

It's a product that's significantly more difficult to make than the Fury. No disabled CUs, tighter voltage bins. Why the heck would they price it lower?

I would expect it to be priced around the same as the Fury X.

Everything I mentioned in the earlier post you didn't get.

NV can release a small form factor 980 SKU and deliver exactly the same performance at similar perf/w.

People will see the perf profile, power profile and look at its price, then compare at the nearest competition. That is the 980 which can be had for ~$449.

AMD wants a premium for SIZE? No way, recipe for failure.

 

[Noctifer616]

So this is slower than a 390 but nearly 2x the price ?

According to the posted chart it's actually faster than the 390.

 

[Goatsecks]

Everything I mentioned in the earlier post you didn't get.

NV can release a small form factor 980 SKU and deliver exactly the same performance at similar perf/w.

People will see the perf profile, power profile and look at its price, then compare at the nearest competition. That is the 980 which can be had for ~$449.

AMD wants a premium for SIZE? No way, recipe for failure.

What are you on about? Does any one else understand this post?

 

[AtenRa]

This should be a $499 card. Faster than $399 R9 390X, faster than $449 GTX980 at 1440/4K.

Fury NANO = $499
Fury = $549
Fury X = $649

 

[Hitman928]

My math based upon approximate values of 34 fps vs 31 fps for Nano and 290x respectively as well as 190% perf/w for Nano compared to Hawaii and a base line power consumption value of 260 W for 290x puts the Nano power consumption right at 150 W for this particular test. However, we don't know any graphics settings but is most likely at 4k or heavy MSAA based upon performance so most likely best case scenario for nano and it won't have as good perf/w at lower resolutions.

note: (34 fps / W) = 1.9 * (31 fps / 260 W) -> W = 150 W

 

[Silverforce11]

My math based upon approximate values of 34 fps vs 31 fps for Nano and 290x respectively as well as 190% perf/w for Nano compared to Hawaii and a base line power consumption value of 260 W for 290x puts the Nano power consumption right at 150 W for this particular test. However, we don't know any graphics settings but is most likely at 4k or heavy MSAA based upon performance.

note: (34 fps / W) = 1.9 * (31 fps / 260 W) -> W = 150 W

If you read the link, they said FC4 at 4K on Ultra settings. Your estimate is right, they did mention ~150W.

AMD's TDP rating is 175W, their GPU usually use less in games than the rated TDP.

 

[Hitman928]

If you read the link, they said FC4 at 4K on Ultra settings. Your estimate is right, they did mention ~150W.

AMD's TDP rating is 175W, their GPU usually use less in games than the rated TDP.

They're assuming display settings based upon performance, just like I am. I don't see it not being 4k @ Ultra, but it could have been 1440p with higher MSAA or something. They're also assuming 260 W or less for the 290x given that they said less than 150 W. This is also reasonable based upon 290x reference power tests at tomshardware.com.

 

[Enigmoid]

This isn't a 'result' this is a marketing slide from AMD. And companies have a tendency (both Nvidia and AMD) to exaggerate on marketing slides.

We all remember the last marketing slide.

(AMD Fury X reviewer's Guide)

I'm not trying to thread crap or anything but this is NOT a 'result'.

 

[tential]

I agree Enigmoid. Given the Fury X launch, I'm not expecting aggressive pricing or anything here. I'm expecting the Fury Nano to come in at $500 and do nothing to shake up the market, just like the Fury X and Fury launches.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah sure its cherry picked & presented at a conference. But its comparing against other GCN SKU so at least we know where it stacks up.

But did anyone expected more or less? Not really. Dr. Lisa Su already said exactly what's shown here, faster than R290X, 2x power efficiency.

Only thing left of interest: PRICE.

 

[Goatsecks]

Yeah sure its cherry picked & presented at a conference. But, I am going to ignore that.

There ya go buddy. All fixed.

 

[crisium]

Remember it says "Hawaii". AMD is very particular in calling 390 and 390X as Grenada (they contacted Wiz when he labelled 390 series as Hawaii in GPUZ). In order to exaggerate results, this is probably compared to the 290 (non X) in a scenario where Fury X really shines over Hawaii.

If AMD themselves say a Nano is ~9% faster than a 290, then that's probably slightly exaggerated.

I have no idea how they are gonna price this. What's best case scenario, that it slightly beats the 970 in both performance and PPW? Then how do they market it? Unlike the 390 series it offers great PPW, so it will certainly cost more than $330. But I'm not sure how they plan to stop people from buying the 970 if they ask for a lot more money.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Can't help but wonder how circumstances could have been different had AMD gotten Fiji out near the beginning of May. Would have probably taken away some of the 980 Ti's thunder.

However if Fiji were released earlier I think alot of those adopters would probably regret purchasing the Fury X over the Ti...

That said the Nano could be interesting but at this point and time, might as well wait till HBM2 and Pascal.

 

[Hitman928]

Hawaii means 290x, it's in the notes on one of the slides. I'm thinking that on average, the nano will be just about on par with a 290x, but with certain test cases (e.g. Bioshock Infinite, The Witcher 3) where the nano will hold a significant (15% or more) advantage.

 

[crisium]

Yes, says 290X and compared in Far Cry 4. Good to note.