Fury Nano: First results in!

[Madpacket]

IIRC from my mining days you could undervolt and underclock reference 290X's (both memory and GPU) and shave off almost ~100 Watts without affecting performance too much. Other than the size these new Nano cards don't really impress me much.

Price wise they better be closer to 450 or the market will ignore them.

 

[linkgoron]

Like the whole Fury lineup, this seems to be too little too late.

If this really is a cherry picked benchmark, and this is the "best" that the Nano has to offer... It's basically a much more efficient 390. I'm not sure it's worth paying 450$ over the 330$ the 390 is going for.

 

[Denly]

I wish they made a 1/2 height version of this.

 

[tential]

Like the whole Fury lineup, this seems to be too little too late.

If this really is a cherry picked benchmark, and this is the "best" that the Nano has to offer... It's basically a much more efficient 390. I'm not sure it's worth paying 450$ over the 330$ the 390 is going for.

I'm betting the reviews will follow that too little too late mantra.

This is the best case, so the normal actual gaming cases that are playable will be worse.

 

[AtenRa]

People payed $500 for the GTX980 to have 10-15% more performance AND lower power consumption over the GTX780Ti.
Now suddenly when Fury Nano has 2x the perf/watt over the R9 390/X is not worth paying for it ???

 

[ShintaiDK]

The problem for the Nano is that such a card have existed for a year. And the GTX980 is already down to 450$. And I wouldnt be surprised if it got a price cut to 400$.

 

[Hitman928]

The problem for the Nano is that such a card have existed for a year. And the GTX980 is already down to 450$. And I wouldnt be surprised if it got a price cut to 400$.

Well, if the slides hold up to review results, the nano would actually perform about the same as a 980 but with lower power consumption. As far as I know, there also aren't any 6 inch (or even close to) 980 models out there, so not sure how this card has already existed for a year.

With that said, this card is not meant for the vast majority of users here as the vast majority of people don't need the benefits of the nano card. I don't expect this to be a high volume card for DIY builders but it should be king of the hill for SFF builds until next gen cards arrive, from what data we have at least.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, if the slides hold up to review results, the nano would actually perform about the same as a 980 but with lower power consumption. As far as I know, there also aren't any 6 inch (or even close to) 980 models out there, so not sure how this card has already existed for a year.

With that said, this card is not meant for the vast majority of users here as the vast majority of people don't need the benefits of the nano card. I don't expect this to be a high volume card for DIY builders but it should be king of the hill for SFF builds until next gen cards arrive, from what data we have at least.

I agree, also i believe Fury Nano to be even faster than GTX980 in DX-12 games at lower power consumption.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well, if the slides hold up to review results, the nano would actually perform about the same as a 980 but with lower power consumption. As far as I know, there also aren't any 6 inch (or even close to) 980 models out there, so not sure how this card has already existed for a year.

With that said, this card is not meant for the vast majority of users here as the vast majority of people don't need the benefits of the nano card. I don't expect this to be a high volume card for DIY builders but it should be king of the hill for SFF builds until next gen cards arrive, from what data we have at least.

If you got a SFF you know you want heat out of the case. And this is why all these "mini" cards fail flat in that form factor. There is really only 2 options there. Blower or water.

 

[linkgoron]

People payed $500 for the GTX980 to have 10-15% more performance AND lower power consumption over the GTX780Ti.
Now suddenly when Fury Nano has 2x the perf/watt over the R9 390/X is not worth paying for it ???

I don't think it's worth it. Other people might disagree.
I will probably buy a 390 if the performance is basically equivalent and the price of the Nano will really be 450$.

 

[tential]

People payed $500 for the GTX980 to have 10-15% more performance AND lower power consumption over the GTX780Ti.
Now suddenly when Fury Nano has 2x the perf/watt over the R9 390/X is not worth paying for it ???

I'm sorry but since when was the fury nano the gtx 980?

Last I checked, the gtx 980 released last year.
How is that the same as a fury nano releasing now into a market in which there is already a good competing product?

Gtx 980 was a halo product at the time.

Are you explaining to me that fury nano is the current halo product?

Fury nano can be at 500 no problems. Just don't expect anyone to be remotely excited about a gtx 980 clone that's a little bit smaller and a year late.... I couldn't care less about fury nano at 500 really.

Edit: who wants to bet we hear a "but dx12 performance?"
Great, the amd waiting game. Just wait, our hardware will be good we promise! Just wait for software to catch up.
Anyone who also posts on the cpu section has surely heard this about the fx lineup....

 

[Insomniator]

Am I the only one extremely confused by AMD's naming scheme lately?

 

[AtenRa]

I'm sorry but since when was the fury nano the gtx 980?

Last I checked, the gtx 980 released last year.
How is that the same as a fury nano releasing now into a market in which there is already a good competing product?

Gtx 980 was a halo product at the time.

Are you explaining to me that fury nano is the current halo product?

Fury nano can be at 500 no problems. Just don't expect anyone to be remotely excited about a gtx 980 clone that's a little bit smaller and a year late.... I couldn't care less about fury nano at 500 really.

Edit: who wants to bet we hear a "but dx12 performance?"
Great, the amd waiting game. Just wait, our hardware will be good we promise! Just wait for software to catch up.
Anyone who also posts on the cpu section has surely heard this about the fx lineup....

By the same logic, why did NVIDIA released the GTX950 now at $159 ??? AMD Pitcairn was released almost 3 years ago, R7 270X was released 2 years ago

If AMD believes there is a market for the Nano at $499, it doesnt mean it can be recommended by everyone for everyone. There are people that will buy such a product, like there are people buying $1000 titans or upgrading to GTX980 over GTX780ti.

Just because you dont like it or you find it expensive doesnt mean everyone else thinks the same as you or has the same hardware need or what ever.

Also, i dont see AMD trying to capture a marketshare with those high-end, low volume GPUs. They sell them at the price they believe they should, same price as the competition. If someone is in the market for a $450-500 GTX980 today, they now have two more alternatives, the Fury and Fury Nano. Each one of the three has its own pros and cons, but you have three choices now instead of one.
Simple as that

 

[AtenRa]

I don't think it's worth it. Other people might disagree.
I will probably buy a 390 if the performance is basically equivalent and the price of the Nano will really be 450$.

So what you saying is that last year you would buy the R9 290X over the GTX980.
I would to, but others are fine spending more for 10-15% higher performance AND lower power.
Those will choose the Fury Nano over the R9 390 today, simple as that.

 

[thesmokingman]

Hmm, were ppl expecting the Nano to match a Fury with a 150w tdp??? Expecting it to break the laws of physics or something? And ya want it all for less than ever?

 

[boozzer]

this is for the perf/watt crowd. there is your cake, now eat it.

 

[tential]

By the same logic, why did NVIDIA released the GTX950 now at $159 ??? AMD Pitcairn was released almost 3 years ago, R7 270X was released 2 years ago

If AMD believes there is a market for the Nano at $499, it doesnt mean it can be recommended by everyone for everyone. There are people that will buy such a product, like there are people buying $1000 titans or upgrading to GTX980 over GTX780ti.

Just because you dont like it or you find it expensive doesnt mean everyone else thinks the same as you or has the same hardware need or what ever.

Also, i dont see AMD trying to capture a marketshare with those high-end, low volume GPUs. They sell them at the price they believe they should, same price as the competition. If someone is in the market for a $450-500 GTX980 today, they now have two more alternatives, the Fury and Fury Nano. Each one of the three has its own pros and cons, but you have three choices now instead of one.
Simple as that

Funny how you always try to draw a comparison to something nvidia did/has done and say "why can't amd do it too!"

Because amd is not nvidia, the product they are selling isn't the same(you compare to gtx 980 which has far higher oc potential, a more flexible chip, was the fastest chip on the market, release a year ago etc.)

And if amd isn't even attempting to price their products properly and doesn't care about marketshare isn't that even more a reason to avoid? If your market share is plummeting, and you do absolutely nothing to help regain that share..... Then that's a massive red flag. It's things like this that make me avoid the r9 lineup because the future is stupidly up in the air for amd.

About the gtx 950 surely you're not kidding right? It's launching vs a 3 year old product.... Again another thing you forget is features. Gtx 950 has for more features than a joke of an old 270x.

You have a lot of market research to do if you want to learn why amd is struggling today. For me as a business major and a person who deals with marketing/sales every day it's not hard to understand. For tech enthusiasts who are more science based it may be different though.

 

[Phynaz]

Let me know when they knock 50W off the TDP, that's a card that might spur my interest.

 

[96Firebird]

this is for the perf/watt crowd. there is your cake, now eat it.

I'm guessing they're full from eating it for the past year...

 

[linkgoron]

So what you saying is that last year you would buy the R9 290X over the GTX980.
I would to, but others are fine spending more for 10-15% higher performance AND lower power.
Those will choose the Fury Nano over the R9 390 today, simple as that.

I'm not sure as I wasn't really following what was going on a year ago.

I've been following more closely lately as I've got an itch for a new PC. For myself, I can't justify ~25% increase in price for the same performance, even though the perf/watt is significantly better. I'm happy that things are improving in perf/watt for AMD but things are looking a bit late. A year ago the Fury Nano would've been an excellent product, the same goes for the Fury X etc.

My opinion might change if the Fury Nano will be 5-10% better than the 390x or will have a lower MSRP. However, from the current data, it doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that AMD is being so secretive and comparing things vs. the 290x instead of the 390/390x is also telling.

 

[therealnickdanger]

People payed $500 for the GTX980 to have 10-15% more performance AND lower power consumption over the GTX780Ti.
Now suddenly when Fury Nano has 2x the perf/watt over the R9 390/X is not worth paying for it ???

While I get what you're saying, it's not really a fair comparison. In addition to the better perf and perf/W, the jump from 780Ti to 980 brought better 4K HEVC encode/decode, HDMI 2.0, higher D3D12 features (not that it matters at the moment), the 780Ti debuted at $699 compared to the 980 at $549. So in that case, you got more for $150 LESS. A more fair comparison would be 780Ti to 980Ti, where you got more for $50 LESS as well!

390/X ($429) to Nano ($449-499) gives better perf and much better perf/W, "Tonga+" features, smaller footprint (awesome!), but little else for $20-70 MORE. It actually doesn't make much sense. Compared to sub-$300 290/290X, it's even worse.

I'd say the jury is still out until we start seeing some actual reviews and an official price.

 

[AtenRa]

Funny how you always try to draw a comparison to something nvidia did/has done and say "why can't amd do it too!"

AMD already has done what NVIDIA already did, they priced Fury X the same as GTX980Ti, they priced Fury at $549 and now they may price the Nano at $499.

Because amd is not nvidia, the product they are selling isn't the same(you compare to gtx 980 which has far higher oc potential, a more flexible chip, was the fastest chip on the market, release a year ago etc.)

You got that right, Nano could have lower power consumption, it is smaller, it could be faster at DX-12 and with only 850MHz for the Core, it may be able to OC to 1GHz.
So lets wait for the actual release and reviews and then draw any conclusions.

And if amd isn't even attempting to price their products properly and doesn't care about marketshare isn't that even more a reason to avoid? If your market share is plummeting, and you do absolutely nothing to help regain that share..... Then that's a massive red flag. It's things like this that make me avoid the r9 lineup because the future is stupidly up in the air for amd.

Fortunately, the vast majority of consumers dont think like that.

You have a lot of market research to do if you want to learn why amd is struggling today. For me as a business major and a person who deals with marketing/sales every day it's not hard to understand. For tech enthusiasts who are more science based it may be different though.

I am in the PC retail market, i believe i know one or two things about that market

 

[boozzer]

I'm guessing they're full from eating it for the past year...

I prefer the perf/$ cake

you, on the other hand...........

 

[ShintaiDK]

with only 850MHz for the Core, it may be able to OC to 1GHz.

And use 275W?

 

[Abwx]

Because amd is not nvidia, the product they are selling isn't the same(you compare to gtx 980 which has far higher oc potential, a more flexible chip, was the fastest chip on the market, release a year ago etc.)

Nano will be clocked at 825-850Mhz and we know that it can clock at 1050MHz, that s 25% overclock 100% guaranted, so much for the bolded in your post...

And use 275W?

The 980 will use more since it start with more, all chips follow a square law, Nvidia s included unless you can prove that they dont use mosfets in their GPUs.