The Fury Nano Thread

[casiofx]

Fury Nano would be the perfect LAN party box GPU. Imagine easy to carry around SFF PC that is powerful, no more need to carry around heavy PC casing to have high end performance.

 

[NTMBK]

Yea, I don't get this pricing at all. Same chip with a smaller board, less power delivery circuitry, and an entire water cooling setup replaced with a small heatpipe cooler. Somehow that comes to the same price.

It's not the same chip, exactly; it's a very highly binned subset of that chip, which are guaranteed to run stably at a low voltage. These are rarer and more difficult to manufacture than the typical part, so they go for a premium. Same reason that mobile chips cost more.

 

[iiiankiii]

Titan is flying off the shelves and makes nVidia a ton of money. That's not stupidity, that's smart business practice grounded in reality.

In the other thread we were told Titan pricing is justified because it's a "halo". Well here comes the Nano, the fastest ITX/SFF solution available. If it lives up to that promise, that makes it a halo too.


After years of bang-for-buck, what has AMD achieved? Bleeding cash and shrinking in value and relevance every year, that's what.

It's time AMD started taking pages out of nVidia's book with regards to gouging and anti-competitiveness. We consumers might not like it, but this pricing could be one of the best moves they ever make.

Yeah, I get it. You gotta pay to play. But, this is expensive. But how many ITX cases out there will fit a Fury Nano that won't fit a reference gtx 980? Serious question. I think if it can fit and power the nano, it can fit the GTX 980.

At that point, who cares if it's smaller. If the rumor 175w TDP is correct, that's roughly the TDP of a GTX 980. Plus, the GTX 980 cost a bit less.... I don't get it.

edit: nvm. There are some crazy small cases out there that will benefit from a small GPU. I guess people haven't really done builds in those cases because the GPU is a bit underpowered. I guess the Fury Nano will fit nicely for people looking to build the smallest powering gaming pc possible.

 

[el etro]

Price indicates special binning process. The worst thing about it is that will be a low volume product, and will not sell as much as AMD needs to improve market share.
Will be more a product to improve mindshare than a product to recover market share, a thing that AMD needs more now.

 

[AtenRa]

Titan is flying off the shelves and makes nVidia a ton of money. That's not stupidity, that's smart business practice grounded in reality.

In the other thread we were told Titan pricing is justified because it's a "halo". Well here comes the Nano, the fastest ITX/SFF solution available. If it lives up to that promise, that makes it a halo too.


After years of bang-for-buck, what has AMD achieved? Bleeding cash and shrinking in value and relevance every year, that's what.

It's time AMD started taking pages out of nVidia's book with regards to gouging and anti-competitiveness. We consumers might not like it, but this pricing could be one of the best moves they ever make.

yeap, for the AMD business its the right decision. For us consumers the worst desktop dGPU period of the last 10 years.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'll just leave this here:
PC Gaming is a expensive hobby but people who truly love it will keep spending no matter what. Not that I agree with pricing but since Fury X is still sold out, it means whatever AMD is able to send to retailers it's being sold right away.

 

[Shehriazad]

Wouldn't it be better for AMD right now to slice their profit margins as thin as possible to raise the market share as much as possible to stay relevant?


I don't understand the pricing...AMD is not gonna have black numbers for the next 1-2 years, anyway...so you might as well eat the red numbers like a boss but at least stay relevant enough to not go out of business?


I would've bought a Nano even @ $500 due to it being a small powerhouse...but 650?(As much as their own Fury X?!? Mad?!?) That better not be official...because that means it would be 650€ in Europe...that is just not worth it.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Look I wouldn't buy it myself, but I can see the attraction. That kind of performance in a low power, quiet mini ITX card is pretty attractive.

But, the problem is that the Fury X exists. That is a quiet card and its also not huge. The Fury Nano is a little too expensive for its very Nano use case.

Its really only if you are severely space limited that it becomes a good option. Otherwise, the Fury X is better.

 

[Silverforce11]

Wouldn't it be better for AMD right now to slice their profit margins as thin as possible to raise the market share as much as possible to stay relevant?

That's the fastest way to be irrelevant, taking a bigger loss for marketshare isn't a success because they have no money to survive the next generations.

We'll see once the reviews come, but if its 50% more power efficient than Fury X, but it's only 5% slower (1Ghz vs 1050Mhz) in a better form factor (chunky rads don't go well for quite a few small slim-mITX builds), it'll be a good test of the markets.

Same price, much more perf/w, 5% slower, may appeal to some gamers who value those metrics.

If the cooler does a good job and its quiet, then its a winner for mITX builds. The problem for them, is how attractive is it outside of mITX? Do people really care about perf/w when there's a premium associated with it?

Official launch video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-c6VAQ-zdw

 

[AtenRa]

Look I wouldn't buy it myself, but I can see the attraction. That kind of performance in a low power, quiet mini ITX card is pretty attractive.

But, the problem is that the Fury X exists. That is a quiet card and its also not huge. The Fury Nano is a little too expensive for its very Nano use case.

Its really only if you are severely space limited that it becomes a good option. Otherwise, the Fury X is better.

There are people that dont like the water cooling on the Fury X and people that want small format and low power as possible for 4K gaming. Fury Nano is the best in its class, you want it ??? you pay for it, simple as that.
I dont like it but NVIDIA showed the way that AMD is now following. And its going to get worse if AMD decide to copy GameWorks tactics.
I think ill go for a ASUS 390 Strix for now.

 

[BFG10K]

http://techreport.com/review/28912/tiny-radeon-r9-nano-to-pack-a-wallop-at-650

Wouldn't it be better for AMD right now to slice their profit margins as thin as possible to raise the market share as much as possible to stay relevant?

No way. A business needs money, not market share. Market share means very little.

Just look at Apple: 20% of the smartphone market, yet they rake in 92% of the profits. What use is 80% market share for the rest when they're left with just 8% profit between them?

 

[tential]

They're saying it's 30% faster, but that's under best case scenarios. Is anyone seriously going to get this card to play at 4K?
1440p is where this card needs to be benched, and I doubt it's faster than a mini itx 970 at 1440p by 30%.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Sell as many as you can make at the highest price you can sell for. AMD isn't being stupid. If it doesn't sell and they don't drop the price quickly, that would be stupid.

People paying $650 for it, they are not wise investors.

 

[tential]

Sell as many as you can make at the highest price you can sell for. AMD isn't being stupid. If it doesn't sell and they don't drop the price quickly, that would be stupid.

People paying $650 for it, they are not wise investors.

If however, it does beat regular Fury like Zlatan suggests, then it's not so bad of a deal is it?
Faster than Fury, but slower than Fury X, but far less power consumption.

 

[mrmt]

It's not the same chip, exactly; it's a very highly binned subset of that chip, which are guaranteed to run stably at a low voltage. These are rarer and more difficult to manufacture than the typical part, so they go for a premium. Same reason that mobile chips cost more.

This. Fury isn't a high margin product by Lisa Su own admission despite having this uncompetitive pricing. We should not expect AMD to field any other Fiji product with pricing much lower than current levels because they cannot afford it, and given that 28nm is a fairly mature node, I don't think there is much room for improvements as far as yields are concerned.

With 20/20 hindsight it seems that AMD tried the wrong medicine on their GPU business. AMD problem wasn't technology, but that they weren't present on the highly profitable segments of the market (Workstations, premium notebooks), so they needed to throw more R&D at the problem, but it seems that in the middle of the 2012 cuts they decided to reenginer the business cutting down costs, and as a result AMD today is seeing another business collapse in slow motion.

What is happening today is a tribute for the incompetence at the BoD. Nvidia is a much smaller and much easier competitor than Intel, Qualcomm and other CPU IHVs. That BoD couldn't think about shifting the entire company towards graphics, but wasn't shy to open yet another front in the CPU market.

 

[Techhog]

If $649 is the lowest they could get this card, it shouldn't have been released. This should have been the "proof of concept," not Project Quantum. It may be the most power efficient card you can get, but that doesn't double its value.

 

[iiiankiii]

AMD needs to market this correctly. AMD should have the Nano in the coolest, and smallest SFF case it can fit in. They need to showcase why the Nano demands a price premium. AMD cannot expect people to figure out what to do with the Nano. Show the world what's possible. Show the Nano running 4k games smoothly in an awesomely small case. Create a niche/expand on the niche for this card. Make people want it. Show how the Nano can create a unique gaming experience.

Yes, I know they showed the "Project Quantum" gaming pc. But that can't be bought. AMD needs to present the Nano in a case that people can get their hands on.

If AMD can't convince people of the price premium, this produce will fail.

 

[Silverforce11]

AMD needs to market this correctly.

If it has the performance, faster than Fury Air (the perf gap between Fury & Fury X is tiny to start with), at ~150W gaming loads, at that size profile, it will market itself.

That's the caveat, we'll have to see how it stacks up.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I hope not, the last thing PC gaming needs is a closed source blackbox AMD GE middleware. Its going to mean if you want to play some titles, you gotta have an AMD GPU, and other titles, you gotta have an NV GPU. That would be ridiculous.

We are halfway there now so either AMD adapts and plays the same game as Nvidia or they are going to die. The whole situation sucks....

As for Nano let's see some independent reviews already why is this products taking so long to come out? I wonder if AMD's claims of perf/watt are only slightly exaggerated as you expect from PR or is AMD really stretching the truth.

 

[mohit9206]

The pricing is a FAIL.
According to Anandtech article this card is 85% of the performance of Fury X which is $650 so 85% of the cost of Fury X should mean that at best R9 Nano should be priced at $550 although ideally it should be no more than $499.
Why would people buy this at $650 when you can buy 980Ti for the same price? And the 980ti has 6gb memory while Nano has only 4gb. I know theoretically HBM is faster than GDDR5 but more memory is more memory.
I LOVE the idea of a high performance graphics card in a small and compact and power efficient form factor but the price is not right.
Cut the price to $499 and its an awesome card to buy but at $650 only die hard AMD loyalists will buy this.

 

[Madpacket]

This card will sell out immediately likely due to the low volumes but I do think it has a market regardless of the stupid expensive price they're launching it with.

People want ITX systems these days. Big computers are thing of the past. Monitors are getting huge and computer desks are not getting any bigger. Bigger monitors mean less desktop space for a large ATX or even MATX case. Some people don't have the option of hiding their computer under their desk (also makes it less accessible and inconvenient).

I agree it would be helpful if AMD partnered with a case company like Silverstone to make an AMD approved ITX case specifically for this card. They have done it with RAM and SSD's, why not computer cases? AMD needs better brand recognition and this card in a beautify tiny ITX case would help them. I also think they should be marketing their own branded 4K and 1440P freesync monitors.

If AMD copies Nvidia with a "closed unless you pay it" Gameworks middleware solution we may end up with a similar situation in the gaming console landscape where to get access to the best gaming experience you'll need to buy all of the consoles. Hopefully PC gaming doesn't turn into this as it's expensive enough as a hobby.

I would love to buy one of these cards but the value isn't there yet, and how long away are we from 20nm graphic cards? If less than a year or so this will feel like buying a Titan and few months later you get screwed by a card almost half its price with the same performance.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Isn't the Nano basically half whatever the dual GPU card will be?

That will be interesting, two on those on a single GPU for less that $1200 would be a Titan killer for those who don't mind Xcrossfire.

 

[SPBHM]

if it performs close to the Fury X I can kind of understand the price (but if they were comparing it to some 970 it seems kind of absurd, even if it's for size/power characteristics, the price difference is huge),

but I think it will have a hard time on the market at this price... the entire Fury line seems to be priced to high, but maybe once they have supply sorted it will improve?

 

[Eymar]

Interesting card on specs and size, but non-starter for most people at that price. Looks like Nano is mainly for system builders as cost can be offset some with smaller psu and markup for power system is usually high anyways.

 

[Creig]

I hope not, the last thing PC gaming needs is a closed source blackbox AMD GE middleware. Its going to mean if you want to play some titles, you gotta have an AMD GPU, and other titles, you gotta have an NV GPU. That would be ridiculous.

Isn't that the path Nvidia has already started us down with Gameworks, PhysX, G-sync, etc?