Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[ShintaiDK]

People forget easily,

GTX980 released at $549, it was 15% faster than GTX970 with a 67% higher cost ($329 vs $549).

Now,

Fury is 30% faster than GTX970 at %100 higher cost. Seams reasonable to me from an NVIDIA point of view

Do you really think AMDs PR slides will be spot on for the first time and it will be 30%?

And GTX980 is a 1 year old product and it doesnt cost 549$ anymore. Yet it offers the same performance and performance/watt.

 

[railven]

People forget easily,

GTX980 released at $549, it was 15% faster than GTX970 with a 67% higher cost ($329 vs $549).

Now,

Fury is 30% faster than GTX970 at %100 higher cost. Seams reasonable to me from an NVIDIA point of view

This post makes no sense.

So, if the price is $650 buyers will most likely look at other products in the same price bracket.

You got faster water cooled Fury X, possibly faster air cooled Fury and faster air cooled 980 Ti.


I recall some people posting it shouldn't get a premium do to form factor now that it does, it's the only thing to consider.

 

[LTC8K6]

People forget easily,

GTX980 released at $549, it was 15% faster than GTX970 with a 67% higher cost ($329 vs $549).

Now,

Fury is 30% faster than GTX970 at %100 higher cost. Seams reasonable to me from an NVIDIA point of view

GTX980 was a top dog card at the time, not a card aimed at the middle of the road mini computer crowd.

AMD is aiming Nano at the 970, and the mini computer crowd, for some reason.

 

[AtenRa]

Do you really think AMDs PR slides will be spot on for the first time and it will be 30%?

And GTX980 is a 1 year old product and it doesnt cost 549$ anymore. Yet it offers the same performance and performance/watt.

When the GTX980 came to market is irrelevant to the context of the Nano being 30% faster at 100% higher price.

People were saying you pay a premium for the 15% higher performance, well you pay a higher premium for 30% higher performance today. Simple as that.
You dont like it ??? You should of raise your voice last year on the GTX980 release

 

[ShintaiDK]

When the GTX980 came to market is irrelevant to the context of the Nano being 30% faster at 100% higher price.

People were saying you pay a premium for the 15% higher performance, well you pay a higher premium for 30% higher performance today. Simple as that.
You dont like it ??? You should of raise your voice last year on the GTX980 release

With the Nano you just pay a higher price. Thats the point you keep forgetting. Nano performance and power consumption cost what today. 450-480$?

 

[AtenRa]

This post makes no sense.

So, if the price is $650 buyers will most likely look at other products in the same price bracket.

You got faster water cooled Fury X, possibly faster air cooled Fury and faster air cooled 980 Ti.


I recall some people posting it shouldn't get a premium do to form factor now that it does, it's the only thing to consider.

The context is 15% higher performance at X amount higher price vs 30% higher performance at Y amount higher price.

Im not saying people will rash by the millions to buy the Fury Nano, im communicating why the 100% higher price over GTX970 is reasonably from the NVIDIA point of view. :biggrin:

 

[AtenRa]

GTX980 was a top dog card at the time, not a card aimed at the middle of the road mini computer crowd.

Fury Nano is Top Dog in perf/watt and at a SFF format. You pay a premium for those according to NVIDIA. :whiste:

AMD is aiming Nano at the 970, and the mini computer crowd, for some reason.

AMD IS NOT AIMING 970 mini, Fury Nano is top dog in its category and that will make you pay a premium if you want it. Simple as that.

Same as Titan X, its not for everyone but some people did buy them even today after the GTX980Ti.

 

[AtenRa]

With the Nano you just pay a higher price. Thats the point you keep forgetting. Nano performance and power consumption cost what today. 450-480$?

It still faster than GTX980, with SFF format and lower power consumption. That is premium for you and me, even today.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It still faster than GTX980, with SFF format and lower power consumption. That is premium for you and me, even today.

Is it?

 

[AtenRa]

Is it?

At 4K yes it is.

edit: Before anyone say anything about that,

This is the market AMD is pushing Nano, not 1080/1440p

 

[tential]

The context is 15% higher performance at X amount higher price vs 30% higher performance at Y amount higher price.

Im not saying people will rash by the millions to buy the Fury Nano, im communicating why the 100% higher price over GTX970 is reasonably from the NVIDIA point of view.

I love cherry picked parallels to nvidia they don't tell the full story.

Gtx 980 vs gtx 970 at launch isn't the same thing as r9 nano vs gtx 970 1 year later.

 

[ShintaiDK]

At 4K yes it is.

edit: Before anyone say anything about that,

Again you blindly use PR numbers. Remember Fury X vs 980TI?

And GTX980 is 165W TDP, not 175W. GTX970 is 145W.

 

[AtenRa]

I love cherry picked parallels to nvidia they don't tell the full story.

Gtx 980 vs gtx 970 at launch isn't the same thing as r9 nano vs gtx 970 1 year later.

One year later you have the Nano at 30% faster than 970 at 100% higher price.

Is it expensive ?? YES IT IS

Is it for everyone ??? NO ITs NOT.

Do you want one ??? You have to pay a premium to get it.

Thats the way its meant to be sold

 

[LTC8K6]

Fury Nano is Top Dog in perf/watt and at a SFF format. You pay a premium for those according to NVIDIA. :whiste:



AMD IS NOT AIMING 970 mini, Fury Nano is top dog in its category and that will make you pay a premium if you want it. Simple as that.

Same as Titan X, its not for everyone but some people did buy them even today after the GTX980Ti.

When I look at AMD's Nano marketing, I see the GTX970. Don't know what else to tell you.

We don't know that Nano is top dog at anything. AMD's slides don't make it look like it will be.

In fact, we have had hints that it might not be.

 

[AtenRa]

Again you blindly use PR numbers. Remember Fury X vs 980TI?

And GTX980 is 165W TDP, not 175W. GTX970 is 145W.

TDP is not power consumption, i thought we were past that.

 

[ShintaiDK]

TDP is not power consumption, i thought we were past that.

And how is that related to your linked chart? you also forgot to mention the GTX980 was 50% faster than the 290X.

And whats this?

2 idle cores vs the 290X?

And for power consumption:

 

[AtenRa]

When I look at AMD's Nano marketing, I see the GTX970. Don't know what else to tell you.

We don't know that Nano is top dog at anything. AMD's slides don't make it look like it will be.

In fact, we have had hints that it might not be.

30% higher performance than the fastest SFF card = topdog in its category by a large margin.

 

[AtenRa]

And how is that related to your linked chart?

To show you that TDP is not power consumption ???

 

[tential]

One year later you have the Nano at 30% faster than 970 at 100% higher price.

Is it expensive ?? YES IT IS

Is it for everyone ??? NO ITs NOT.

Do you want one ??? You have to pay a premium to get it.

Thats the way its meant to be sold

You're again missing my point I don't know how else to explain this to you. Can you find a marketing slide from nvidia from the gtx 980 release that says
Gtx 980 - 15% faster than gtx 970.
Curious because I doubt nvidia was dumb enough to market the gtx 980 in that way but I could be wrong.

I'm not debating the price... I've said numerous times the price is justified...

I'm debating how the presented the product which is not how you present a premium product. Period.

 

[Vesku]

Yet it offers the same performance and performance/watt.

As you've been repeating, we don't know that yet. Also, is a GTX 980 mini reasonable to produce? I mean it's not as if there aren't people who would buy one over the GTX 970 mini yet ~10 months later still no 980 version. Would it not sustain minimum Nvidia advertised boost or something and Nvidia hasn't given their blessing to such a card with custom lower clocks? One thing we do know about Nano is it will be for sale starting September 10th.

 

[LTC8K6]

TDP is not power consumption, i thought we were past that.

Are we using overclocked 130W 4960X processors in mini systems these days?

 

[LTC8K6]

30% higher performance than the fastest SFF card = topdog in its category by a large margin.

So they are aiming at the 970 mini then?

What's the fastest card in the category right now?

 

[Absolute0]

I think, AtenRa the 30% number from AMD's marketing is not a good or "real" number and comparisons shouldn't be drawn from it. It's best case, it's the top end of a range.

Yes Nano is top dog in its category - pretty much an empty category: "A class of its own" in AMD's words in your image.

Hence the other criticism - I'm with Tential on this. If it's a class of its own, it shouldn't be compared to a $350 card, unless it DESTROYS that $350 card. But at 30% tops, the devastation is weak.


*Edit: the criticism then is not so much directed at the Nano as the way AMD has marketed it. They need to justify the $650 which is like--- too much. They can't do this by comparing to 1/2 cost card.

 

[AtenRa]

Are we using overclocked 130W 4960X processors in mini systems these days?

Although this is irrelevant about TDP is not power usage,

Yes we are using 130W processors in mini -itx systems now days

 

[thesmokingman]

People forget easily,

GTX980 released at $549, it was 15% faster than GTX970 with a 67% higher cost ($329 vs $549).

Now,

Fury is 30% faster than GTX970 at %100 higher cost. Seams reasonable to me from an NVIDIA point of view

That's why they sold a million cards in no time. PPL thought they were getting a free lunch until it turns out, doh you got segmented memory. Oh Snap. Anyways at face value, 85% of the performance for $220 bucks less. Ya, that is a not tough sell er that is until you figure in the memory snafu.