And use 275W?
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.
Also those saying that it should cost more than Reg Fury need to remember that sales price isn't always tied to manufacturing costs --- I mean yeah you want to sell for more than cost obviously, but in this market they HAVE to price it according to it's performance, at least somewhat. At least if they want any sales. I really don't think there is room for AMD to charge a premium since it's small. I think the $450 price is about right -- MAYBE $499 max.
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.
Let me know when they knock 50W off the TDP, that's a card that might spur my interest.
So, you're saying that they need to offer a card as fast as a 980 with the power consumption of a 960 to get your attention.
People here are silly.
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
What's hilarious is that the gtx 980 was just 500 last week when people wanted to do comparisons against amds fury by amd fans.Yep, that way it keeps the trend of them all being overpriced by $50 at launch.
No, I never said that. Go back and read what I wrote.
What's hilarious is that the gtx 980 was just 500 last week when people wanted to do comparisons against amds fury by amd fans.
Now 1 week later it's 450 to justify fury Nanos price.
It's even worse when the same people who hated the gtx 980 for its price, now say amd prices aren't bad due to that same gtx 980 price they said was over price......
Its just getting ridiculous.
Either way though, the numbers speak for themselves. A small handful of users here have new amd cards. A ton of users have 980tis including those who tend to lean red. So ya, amd needs to price better or they'll price themselves into their downfall.
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.
Yep, that way it keeps the trend of them all being overpriced by $50 at launch.
My 7950 will stay because I don't want an nvidia chip. I don't want gsync, I don't want dsr, I want the amd equivalents at a decent price. Sadly, nvidia is giving me better pricing.... That's not the case normally. And while many prefer nvidia drivers, I don't update my drivers for every single game release. So I like amd on that front.Yeah, availability and price are certainly what's keeping me with my HD7970. If the Fury air-cooled cards debuted at $499, I'd likely have picked one up (if it was widely available and at its MSRP, which has been the other problem). I lean red because of driver stability and consistency over the years. The 980 Ti is tempting but a bit much for my GPU budget and I don't want to give up my nice reliable AMD drivers. Now if AMD would just drop their prices to better bang-for-the-buck territory like that have in the past...
Like the whole Fury lineup, this seems to be too little too late.
Nvidia surprised us on pricing in a good way multiple times recently. Amd disappointed most with the whole r9 lineup pricing.
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.
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.
Whats funny is that AMD has far more penetration in the industry than NV regardless of marketing, they literally have their fingers and hardware in everything that matters. It's purely marketing for AMD on the PC front, blatantly. Maybe red is the wrong color because there is some arbitrary reason (beyond power consumption) as to why the larger portion of people choose a GeForce card over a Radeon - I've done it myself as I've bounced back and forth from both camps over the last 20 years.
It's too bad really but I believe there is a perceptual snow ball which takes off rolling down hill. AMD have almost zero face value when it comes to viral/social marketing, this also isn't nVidia's strong point but it's the fact that they do it at all which starts the ball rolling and breeds a loyal and social fanbase who will naysay and completely ignore anything which is not. A bit like a religion...
pricing wouldn't matter at all when it comes to nv users, at least on this forum. only matters to guys who doesn't care for brands.
OC + supply is a big deal. especially supply. what is the point of the best product in the world when you can barely meet 1/10th of the demand?
mobile gpu is kinda sad. it felt like amd abandoned that entire market. I bought a 980m laptop just recently. hopefully the last of it's kinda. I can't wait for my future apu gaming laptop.
What about those whose first 3D video card was the 3dfx Voodoo 4MB? And countless 2D only cards before.Tential made a great point that AMD needs to get into the face of younger generation of gamers -- YouTubers, Twitch gamers, the popularity contest groups that young PC gamers pay attention to. As far as the older 40+ generation of PC gamers go, most of those are deeply entrenched into the NV camp. Those same PC gamers bought GeForce 5 and 7 which were pure garbage in performance and IQ in comparison to ATI so nothing will get them to switch. The key for AMD is to get the younger generation of gamers to grow up open-minded but unfortunately for AMD, NV simply makes better products right now. Once a young gamer buys his first GPU and likes the experience, he is going to be less likely to switch. The first chance they'll have to turn things around is 14-16nm HBM2 cards.
Whats funny is that AMD has far more penetration in the industry than NV regardless of marketing, they literally have their fingers and hardware in everything that matters. It's purely marketing for AMD on the PC front, blatantly. Maybe red is the wrong color because there is some arbitrary reason (beyond power consumption) as to why the larger portion of people choose a GeForce card over a Radeon - I've done it myself as I've bounced back and forth from both camps over the last 20 years.
It's too bad really but I believe there is a perceptual snow ball which takes off rolling down hill. AMD have almost zero face value when it comes to viral/social marketing, this also isn't nVidia's strong point but it's the fact that they do it at all which starts the ball rolling and breeds a loyal and social fanbase who will naysay and completely ignore anything which is not. A bit like a religion...
Anyhow, can't wait to see what the Nano can do. I believe the perf/watt shows that GCN is efficient but exponentially inefficient when stepping outside a certain threshold which Hawaii, Grenada and Fiji do slightly but tolerably
I will READILY admit, I didn't like the 980ti at launch. I barely read the review, I BARELY cared. But, when Fury X launched at $650, and didn't bring anything to the table noteworthy (like the 290x vs Titan launch which was a GREAT review we were ALL excited about that), I couldn't believe it. I was in disbelief that Fury X launched at the performance it did. And then without HDMI 2.0? 4GB VRAM was already something I didn't want to deal with but would for WC. The pump issue is over, but at LAUNCH? Ona HALO product? Ya, that infuriated me to no end.That is true as NV was very aggressive with GTX980Ti's pricing. Although taking AMD out of the equation and looking at 980Ti as a stand-alone NV GPU, it's not priced particularly great for two reasons:
1) It's not even a fully unlocked chip. Historically NV would never sell a cut-down flagship at $649. In fact, it's actually extremely hard to find such a case in the last 10 years except for GTX780 which we all know was an overpriced turd at $650. Fermi GTX480 was cut-down but it was only $499.
2) If we take out after-market 980Ti cards, and compare stock vs. stock reference cards, 980Ti hugely under-delivered vs. 780Ti as far as gen-to-gen performance increases go. If it wasn't for Kepler syndrome in some AAA games, things would look even worse for 980Ti/Fury X this round. TPU has 980Ti 39% and 42% faster than a 780Ti at 1440P and 4K, respectively. As far as generational jumps go, this is weak sauce compared to GTX580->780Ti. Blame 28nm.
In conclusion, even though 980Ti looks well priced relative to Fury/FuryX, most 980 cards, this entire generation has been a big let down for some people, me included. 970/980 brought almost nothing to the table as far as top-end performance goes. It was mostly about HDMI 2.0 and perf/watt but 980, which is spritually just a GTX560Ti successor sold for $550, more than double its historical price. Meh. 960 is the worst x60 series card in the last 5 NV generations as far as generational leaps go, 950 -- we shouldn't even bring that up. R9 300 series are just refreshes of 2-3 year-old tech and all of them are overpriced vs. R9 200 series. Fury/Fury X are poor overclockers.
I hate to sound overly pessimistic but this generation is looking like a write-off for me unless something drastic happens where we get the Next Crysis 1/3/Far Cry 1 game for which we MUST upgrade asap (it blows our minds graphically). I think at this point anyone who held on to GTX680/HD7950/7970 level card can easily make it to 16nm HBM2 and that means 8GB of VRAM
Let's just hope the Nano isn't a paper launch like the Fury X mostly is.
Tential made a great point that AMD needs to get into the face of younger generation of gamers -- YouTubers, Twitch gamers, the popularity contest groups that young PC gamers pay attention to. As far as the older 40+ generation of PC gamers go, most of those are deeply entrenched into the NV camp. Those same PC gamers bought GeForce 5 and 7 which were pure garbage in performance and IQ in comparison to ATI so nothing will get them to switch. The key for AMD is to get the younger generation of gamers to grow up open-minded but unfortunately for AMD, NV simply makes better products right now. Once a young gamer buys his first GPU and likes the experience, he is going to be less likely to switch. The first chance they'll have to turn things around is 14-16nm HBM2 cards.