The Fury Nano Thread

[Shehriazad]

Link

What I want to point at is essentially:
According to AMD the card should generally sustain clockspeeds around 900MHZ and boost in less intensive times to around 1GHZ. (So the,Fury X should be around 10% to 15% faster overall.)

...which further enforces my "What the frick?" face when I try to justify it costing as much as the Fury X...although it definitely would end up being cheaper in production.

You know...no waterblock...less/cheaper VRMs...you can't tell me that this product costs the same just because they take some "cherry picks". It really needs to be cheaper than a Fury X to actually be attractive.

It's sad...at $450 or even @$500 I would've grabbed one...but not for the price of a Fury X.



But in the end I guess this matches that stuff I heard a while back that AMD wants to get rid of the whole "Being the cheaper solution" reputation... Which is sad times (for me) because this card would be the perfect competitor for 970 and 980 and ITX people in oh-so-many aspects.

 

[tential]

I want to see a review on the R9 290 powerlimited and undervolted, crossfired vs these new cards that are $400+

I think we'll see some interesting results.

 

[Silverforce11]

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

Yep and the next big title, MGS V if it's like their previous one, a 680 is faster than R290X. So if you want to enjoy that title and have your invested hardware shine, you better be with NV or suffer the GimpWorks.

Some people think I am biased against NV and that I would love if AMD play dirty like that, but nope, its far from the truth. I do not wish that kind of experience towards other gamers, regardless of their hardware choices. It is incredibly annoying to see your very powerful PC being artificially gimped, such as a 960 trashing Fury X in Project Cars. I would not like for gamers who own 980Ti for their rig to be gimped so that a 285 is faster than it.

It's just bad for gamers. Nobody wins except corporations who employ these dirty tactics.

Thinking about Nano more, it has an advantage over Fury/X, in that there's no competition to it in it's market. So for people who want an mITX rig, there is no better option. AMD is being smart with their marketing/pricing for once, it just sucks for us gamers with these jacked up prices.

 

[tential]

That problem with Nano is the branding/positioning.

Think about it. Look at RS's picture of the Titan X Mini. Think about the first thing you think about. "Cool, Titan X performance in a small package!"
Then, think about the first thing you think about when you think about R9 Nano "Slightly faster than a GTX 980 in a small package!"

Why didn't AMD outright say this:
"R9 Fury X Nano"
Just when you thought fast, couldn't get any smaller, or sip any less power. The 175W version of the Fury X. In a Performance class size of it's own. $650.

I'm MUCH more responsive to that. That seems reasonable to me.

The customer is thinking "Ok, this is the Fury X, but smaller" You've kept no mention of any paltry GTX 970 or R9 290x. Why draw parallels to inferior products? You want your customer to buy THIS product, the BEST that there is in it's class. This is a premium product of amazing build quality. Talk product, when there is no competition that can compete, there is NO need to bring them up, especially when cheaper because the consumer's mind is now DRAWN AWAY from spending $650 and is now thinking of $300 for a GTX 970, and $420 for a R9 290. Why can't AMD figure out how to market. The customer needs to be thinking in the high end price range the whole time if your plan is to drop a $650 price tag....

But no. AMD goes "R9 Nano. It's 30% faster than a GTX 970 Mini! It's better than a R9 290x." Why draw ALL those parralels to CHEAP products, when you're positioning yourself high end? Remind your consumer that this DESERVES a $650 price tag, not compare it to a bunch of far cheaper parts then go, "It's $650!!!!!!". K.....
now I'm just pissed.

Honestly, I could do a better job marketing the R9 Nano in a 30 minute word document than AMD's marketing team did.

 

[Silverforce11]

Seriously if they make a Fury X as a tiny Nano, it would cannibalize Fury X.

If it can hit 1ghz on 175W, they just need to bump it to 200W and it'll maintain 1050mhz, and that's Fury X as a Nano... who would buy Fury X then?

 

[tential]

Honestly, reading my own description of R9 Nano, it sounds good. It sounds AMAZING. But when I hear AMD describe... I just want to kill the card with fire.

 

[LTC8K6]

Honestly, reading my own description of R9 Nano, it sounds good. It sounds AMAZING. But when I hear AMD describe... I just want to kill the card with fire.

I have the same feeling.

I think the card will be great, and probably should have been the first Fury release.

When I read AMD's marketing for Nano, I wonder what the heck they are doing / talking about. They make me doubt the card.

 

[tential]

I have the same feeling.

I think the card will be great, and probably should have been the first Fury release.

When I read AMD's marketing for Nano, I wonder what the heck they are doing / talking about. They make me doubt the card.

AMD screwed up FUry X launch horribly too. Fury X wasn't an overclockers dream. It wasn't faster than a GTX 980Ti. There was no point really showing benches of Fury X being faster, or talk about power consumption/power savings, or even any of that really.

AMD needed to push Fury X for what it is. A 4K gaming Freesync experience. The two technologies go hand in hand.

You have to launch Fury X at E3 with GAMING in mind. It's about transparency with gamers, they were burned multiple times before, they want some honesty.
Put a GTX 980Ti in a clear booth, and a Fury X in a clear booth, both with freesync/gsync monitors/setups that are great. Let gamers play for themselves. They'll see the experience is the same, but the Fury X system is quieter.
Then show the same setups again, at 4K, without freesync/gsync (going to have to lock the resolution setting but of course let them play with everything else). Let them play again. Doubtful they get good frame rates/playable experience compared to freesync/gsync they JUST SAW.
AMD can show off the premium design. And people will realize that whether it's 980Ti/Fury X, it's the SAME experience. Reviewers will see that, before they actually get raw Fury X numbers.

Then, it's no longer Fury X vs GTX 980 Ti in raw FPS. It's getting a smooth playable experience at the cheapest price in the quietest/best form. All of a sudden, you have formed the game around YOUR strengths. AMD doesn't seem to understand that's how you market something.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Some people think I am biased against NV...

For whatever it is worth I think you are one of the most unbiased, fair persons on this forum.

... and that I would love if AMD play dirty like that, but nope, its far from the truth. I do not wish that kind of experience towards other gamers, regardless of their hardware choices.

The way I look at this whole mess is AMD is cornered and has no choice but to out bribe and out influence game devs. If they don't, Nvidia will continue to write gimping code and AMD products will look worse and worse. The result, less and less people will buy a Radeon GPU. The end result, AMD can't survive and ultimately we are all going to be bent over.

I think if AMD plays the same dirty pool at some point there will be a self correction because gamers will get fed up and not bother with games that are highly vendor focused. If there is an alternative for AMD I'd like to hear it.

Thinking about Nano more, it has an advantage over Fury/X, in that there's no competition to it in it's market. So for people who want an mITX rig, there is no better option. AMD is being smart with their marketing/pricing for once, it just sucks for us gamers with these jacked up prices.

I think so too but I have a feeling the review press is going to destroy AMD because of the price and ignore most other aspects of the hardware.

 

[tential]

Fury Nano even should have been positioned against the GTX 980Ti as well in marketing instead of idiotic comparisons to the 290x/970.

"R9 Fury X Nano. It's 1440p for christ sake... not 4k lol... why do you need the noise of a GTX 980Ti or the power consumption? R9 Fury X Nano, Fury X performance class in the smallest, least power consuming, quietest build possible. Trust us, we know loud, we built the R9 290x."

 

[sandorski]

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.

Pretty much. If Low Supply is going to up the Price, it is better for AMD to have that extra $ in their pocket than in the pocket of Retailers.

 

[desprado]

For whatever it is worth I think you are one of the most unbiased, fair persons on this forum.

The way I look at this whole mess is AMD is cornered and has no choice but to out bribe and out influence game devs. If they don't, Nvidia will continue to write gimping code and AMD products will look worse and worse. The result, less and less people will buy a Radeon GPU. The end result, AMD can't survive and ultimately we are all going to be bent over.

I think if AMD plays the same dirty pool at some point there will be a self correction because gamers will get fed up and not bother with games that are highly vendor focused. If there is an alternative for AMD I'd like to hear it.

I think so too but I have a feeling the review press is going to destroy AMD because of the price and ignore most other aspects of the hardware.

AMD chances for bribing are over or copying gameworks.
AMD need marketshare and overall majority of DGPU user to do that.

Even if developers agree to cripple nvidia performance than it is confirmed that game will be a flop on PC because majority around 70% of PC gamer wont buy it.

Nvidia financially help gamework coding and invested millions where AMD do not have that kind of money to spend.

People can only dream but dreams are not reality.

 

[3DVagabond]

That problem with Nano is the branding/positioning.

Think about it. Look at RS's picture of the Titan X Mini. Think about the first thing you think about. "Cool, Titan X performance in a small package!"
Then, think about the first thing you think about when you think about R9 Nano "Slightly faster than a GTX 980 in a small package!"

Why didn't AMD outright say this:
"R9 Fury X Nano"
Just when you thought fast, couldn't get any smaller, or sip any less power. The 175W version of the Fury X. In a Performance class size of it's own. $650.

I'm MUCH more responsive to that. That seems reasonable to me.

The customer is thinking "Ok, this is the Fury X, but smaller" You've kept no mention of any paltry GTX 970 or R9 290x. Why draw parallels to inferior products? You want your customer to buy THIS product, the BEST that there is in it's class. This is a premium product of amazing build quality. Talk product, when there is no competition that can compete, there is NO need to bring them up, especially when cheaper because the consumer's mind is now DRAWN AWAY from spending $650 and is now thinking of $300 for a GTX 970, and $420 for a R9 290. Why can't AMD figure out how to market. The customer needs to be thinking in the high end price range the whole time if your plan is to drop a $650 price tag....

But no. AMD goes "R9 Nano. It's 30% faster than a GTX 970 Mini! It's better than a R9 290x." Why draw ALL those parralels to CHEAP products, when you're positioning yourself high end? Remind your consumer that this DESERVES a $650 price tag, not compare it to a bunch of far cheaper parts then go, "It's $650!!!!!!". K.....
now I'm just pissed.

Honestly, I could do a better job marketing the R9 Nano in a 30 minute word document than AMD's marketing team did.

So, you can't see why they used the comparisons they did?

Fastest current mini is the 970. Nano is faster. What card, more than any other has been labeled as inefficient? The 290X. This card is so much better than both of those in the metrics compared. Thus the reason for the comparisons.

You might think you understand marketing, but you obviously missed the point of the product you are claiming to be able to market so well. Stick to your day job, maybe.

 

[OatisCampbell]

So, you can't see why they used the comparisons they did?

Fastest current mini is the 970. Nano is faster. What card, more than any other has been labeled as inefficient? The 290X. This card is so much better than both of those in the metrics compared. Thus the reason for the comparisons.

You might think you understand marketing, but you obviously missed the point of the product you are claiming to be able to market so well. Stick to your day job, maybe.

It is impossible to say what the performance is at this time because the benchmarks released are at 4K (a resolution most of us don't have) and using 0X AA, 0X AF. (settings no one would ever use)

The screenshot of no AF in that TechReport preview shows why we use AF pretty clearly. The shot of FXAA vs MSAA would be easier to accept, but they only used FXAA in one of the six benchmarks they leaked.:\

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

This release has been a tough one for me. I'd like to support AMD and upgrade my 290, but $649 is a lot of money to me. I got my 7970 and 290 for $250 with some games, this new $500-$650 pricing with AMD has me looking at PS4s with more interest.

 

[3DVagabond]

It is impossible to say what the performance is at this time because the benchmarks released are at 4K (a resolution most of us don't have) and using 0X AA, 0X AF. (settings no one would ever use)

The screenshot of no AF in that TechReport preview shows why we use AF pretty clearly. The shot of FXAA vs MSAA would be easier to accept, but they only used FXAA in one of the six benchmarks they leaked.:\

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

This release has been a tough one for me. I'd like to support AMD and upgrade my 290, but $649 is a lot of money to me. I got my 7970 and 290 for $250 with some games, this new $500-$650 pricing with AMD has me looking at PS4s with more interest.

I agree pricing sucks. Hopefully when supply increases prices will come down. Even then, they'll be too high, IMO.

 

[tential]

So, you can't see why they used the comparisons they did?

Fastest current mini is the 970. Nano is faster. What card, more than any other has been labeled as inefficient? The 290X. This card is so much better than both of those in the metrics compared. Thus the reason for the comparisons.

You might think you understand marketing, but you obviously missed the point of the product you are claiming to be able to market so well. Stick to your day job, maybe.

That's Ok since amd literally can't afford me.

And since you agree that pricing sucks, you clearly missed the point about drawing the consumers eyes towards high end products so that they're willing to spend money vs drawing their eyes to lower end products like the gtx 970, then saying hey

"hey, we have a product 30% faster than a gtx 970, it's 200% the price."

Far worse than saying
"we have a product 5% slower than fury x with far less tdp for the same price ".

But hey, people hope the best for amd whole continually supporting their poor decisions and saying they're doing nothing wrong. So not sure why they get upset when no one wants to buy their products now and are saying it is a bad value

 

[3DVagabond]

That's Ok since amd literally can't afford me.

And since you agree that pricing sucks, you clearly missed the point about drawing the consumers eyes towards high end products so that they're willing to spend money vs drawing their eyes to lower end products like the gtx 970, then saying hey

"hey, we have a product 30% faster than a gtx 970, it's 200% the price."

Far worse than saying
"we have a product 5% slower than fury x with far less tdp for the same price ".

But hey, people hope the best for amd whole continually supporting their poor decisions and saying they're doing nothing wrong. So not sure why they get upset when no one wants to buy their products now and are saying it is a bad value

Who's upset about what other people decide to buy? Certainly not me. Maybe you are a marketing exec and I'm just not giving you credit for your valuable free advice. Are you?

 

[tential]

Who's upset about what other people decide to buy? Certainly not me. Maybe you are a marketing exec and I'm just not giving you credit for your valuable free advice. Are you?

Want to say the salary, role, and company you work for online?

 

[LTC8K6]

So, you can't see why they used the comparisons they did?

Fastest current mini is the 970. Nano is faster. What card, more than any other has been labeled as inefficient? The 290X. This card is so much better than both of those in the metrics compared. Thus the reason for the comparisons.

You might think you understand marketing, but you obviously missed the point of the product you are claiming to be able to market so well. Stick to your day job, maybe.

Who says Nano is faster than the 970?

And the 970 is way cheaper...

 

[StereoPixel]

Who says Nano is faster than the 970?

the normal Fury more slower than Nano, Zlatan said

 

[LTC8K6]

the normal Fury more slower than Nano, Zlatan said

But normal Fury was as fast, or faster than the 980.

Therefore Nano should be much faster than 980.

So why compare Nano to 970 in marketing? And why compare it with the settings they used?

Why not show it beating a 980, where by default it must then blow away a 970 mini?

 

[tential]

But normal Fury was as fast, or faster than the 980.

Therefore Nano should be much faster than 980.

So why compare Nano to 970 in marketing? And why compare it with the settings they used?

Why not show it beating a 980, where by default it must then blow away a 970 mini?

The exact things I've said. Their marketing completely killed my interest.
It wasn't til I stepped back and looked that I realize that this isn't a bad product. It's the marketing that was bad, the underlying product if marketed correctly is far better than amd presented it to be.

 

[3DVagabond]

Want to say the salary, role, and company you work for online?

I work for Smiths City in NZ. I'm not involved in online sales, marketing, etc.. Nothing at all to do with any product or service or anything at all that we discuss here.

Interesting how you took my question that way. I wasn't accusing you of shilling like you just did with me. I honestly wanted to make sure that before I simply dismissed your marketing advice you didn't actually know what you were talking about and it was me who might not understand.

I do have 40 years experience at retailing at a lot of levels. Sales, management, etc... So, I do have some knowledge of marketing.

 

[3DVagabond]

Who says Nano is faster than the 970?

And the 970 is way cheaper...

Well, AMD says it's faster. That's what we're talking about.

AMD tried the perf/$ and too many idiots insisted on paying extra purely due to brand, not performance.

 

[SPBHM]

But normal Fury was as fast, or faster than the 980.

Therefore Nano should be much faster than 980.

So why compare Nano to 970 in marketing? And why compare it with the settings they used?

Why not show it beating a 980, where by default it must then blow away a 970 mini?

I agree, it's a horrible decision to compare it to the 970, the 970 is close to half the price, it makes Nano look overpriced...

I just searched on google for "970 mini" and got an amazon link for $312 (292 after rebate) for a short pcb 970 from gigabyte lol