If it matches GTX 980 performance for a lower price or similar price then it's good. At $500, I'll just cry.
At below $500? Then I happily get one for 4K VSR (which is strangely not available on the 290x/390x despite being PROVEN to work).
This is why I said it needs to be $449 and not $499+, because the 980 is a strong competitor NOW and already in existence for a long time. If you come late to the party and offer nothing revolutionary in performance or perf/w, you can't charge the same, it looks bad.
What about those whose first 3D video card was the 3dfx Voodoo 4MB? And countless 2D only cards before.
While I hated ATI and begrudgingly used NV during those years (for the most part, exceptions being the Radeon 9700/9800 years). Since AMD bought out ATI I've been using their stuff for the most part and it's been a 180 in my opinion from ATI. I love my GCN cards.
With their inherent advantages in VR over NV, Intel adopting Freesync bringing the death of GSync and the possibility of better DX12 performance (at worst, ending NV's DX11 performance advantage)- I can't bring myself to buy a new Nvidia card. They just don't make sense any longer. This coming from someone who thinks the 970 is a great value. I just couldn't drop any money on anything that isn't GCN.
VR/LiquidVR, DX12/Vulkan and variable vsync are technical questions, and as usual, AMD nailed those with the correct technical answers.
Ah.....how about 265 decode and HDMI 2.0By 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
Why does AMD have to push advancement down the industry's throat? They've been trying to get software to be multi-thread/multi-core for years. Finally to get it in rendering API's they actually had to write it, prove it's worth in the market, and then hand it out to everyone for free. WTH!!!!
Is it simply because Intel has the advantage in per core performance and the influence they have?
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.
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.
Fortunately, the vast majority of consumers dont think like that.
I am in the PC retail market, i believe i know one or two things about that market
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...
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.
Why would they even bother releasing it if they had to do that?
So I'll need a card to power my 4K monitor! At this point though, I'm thinking back towards used R9 290s and then setting a powerlimit of -50% so that they run extremely cool in crossfire mode. But that's AGAIN another problem entirely for AMD. That people would rather buy the used last gen card, then the current gen cards out right now.
Why does AMD have to push advancement down the industry's throat? They've been trying to get software to be multi-thread/multi-core for years. Finally to get it in rendering API's they actually had to write it, prove it's worth in the market, and then hand it out to everyone for free. WTH!!!!
Is it simply because Intel has the advantage in per core performance and the influence they have?
No, I never said that. Go back and read what I wrote.
Because it will enable high performance gaming PCs in newer smaller form factors. They just need to follow through with partnerships with reputable OEMs. If they were smart they would have launched the card together with a new small form factor gaming PC from an Alienware or somebody.
You forgot rs that I was 4k vsr to hold me over to a 4k Monitor purchase. Also, I said 290 crossfire no single 290 is enough. And I'm playing older games the most intense game has been Witcher 2 with extreme flora mod it's killing my fps. I'm not going to play any new game just released on any current gpu. That's insane. Im going to wait, play through all the games I missed while partying in school the last 5 years, then get cf of whatever high end card amd has since I'll already have bought into freesync monitor and enjoy whatever games I want moving forward in 4k.
I just need some extra grunt and 4k vsr for the games that are easily able to be driven at that because I love down sampling and sadly, that means I have to be on the new hbm gpus to get it....
You think that someone is willing to pay a $200-300 premium to 290X+ performance in a small PC, when an overclocked GTX 970 can do the same for half the price. Sure thing. Can I borrow a straw? You grasped several hundred at once with this post.
Well, be careful about expecting the nano's to hit 1Ghz -- those chips may be fully enabled but they might not be stable at 1Ghz, AND the power delivery systems on the cards probably wont be up to it. It will be a much smaller implementation of the VRM's and stuff.
I still can't believe how epic the cooler on this card is. AMD should have allowed Sapphire Fury X Tri-X OC card and it would sell like hot cakes!
I really don't know where the Nano should be priced because of where AMD priced 390/390X and the regular Fury, either the Nano will be overpriced relative to the 390/Fury or if it's fast enough, it'll cannibalize the sales of 390X/Fury. Maybe AMD can drop the price of the 390X to $379 and slot the Nano at $429? I could at least see how that would make sense since that move would put a lot more pressure on the 980 but not cannibalize the sales of the 390X and the Fury at the same time.
It's not just perf/$ it's also supply. As long as Fury chips are as low volume as they are, pricing will remain higher.
I just took a peek @ Newegg. Only one Fury and no Fury X in stock. As long as that continues we won't see any reduction in prices.
You think that someone is willing to pay a $200-300 premium to 290X+ performance in a small PC, when an overclocked GTX 970 can do the same for half the price. Sure thing. Can I borrow a straw? You grasped several hundred at once with this post.
I just took a peek @ Newegg. Only one Fury and no Fury X in stock. As long as that continues we won't see any reduction in prices.
I fully agree. Small-sized 970 or 980 will wipe the floor with Nano if its priced that high.
A premium on form factor is a bad mistake.
1: Fury Nano is faster than GTX970.
2: As many people were saying not long ago, if you want the fastest you will pay a premium. (GTX970 vs 980 anyone ??)
3: There is no SFF GTX980 as far as im aware.
People have to used to it, AMD will not be the $/perf king anymore. Selling the R9 290 at sub $300 for so long was a mistake but they had not other choice but to clear inventory. I dont believe we will see $/Perf from AMD again not only in GPUs but CPUs as well.