Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[desprado]

This is way off topic but you got a source for this?

You do not need the source.
The CPU bottleneck speak for it self both on PS4 and Xbox one.Even a weak I3 is better.

 

[Abwx]

Pricing is right, this way they make as much selling one card than selling two at 500$.

At some point any critic of their pricing is bad faith, AMD already experimented razor margin prices with Hawai, we know how the market reacted, often under heavy influence of some dubbious sites.

Should had the consumers rewarded this approach that perf/price would currently be the only relevant metric with all recent GPUs being cheaper.

 

[Abwx]

You do not need the source.
The CPU bottleneck speak for it self both on PS4 and Xbox one.Even a weak I3 is better.

That s off topic but it is worth to point that the i3 would have insufficent perf/Watt, hope it will close this useless debate..

It can be better thanks to twice the power comsumption, the 8 cores on a XB1/PS4 use 18-20W at most...

 

[poofyhairguy]

So Intel might be the ultimate winner sooner than expecting.

When Intel has a 970/290 level GPU, let alone the kind of monster needed to compete with Pascal, then we can talk.

 

[Headfoot]

You do not need the source.
The CPU bottleneck speak for it self both on PS4 and Xbox one.Even a weak I3 is better.

If you mean he doesn't need a source, because its obviously wild speculation, then sure

 

[Phynaz]

$649?! AMD has lost their mind.

 

[dark zero]

You do not need the source.
The CPU bottleneck speak for it self both on PS4 and Xbox one.Even a weak I3 is better.

Actually the reason is how the XB1 GPU is performing... And is performing badly... Really bad.
PS4 on the other side, performs better

And actually an i3 can't compete against those chips. They compete against i5 Ivy.

AMD must do well with Zen. If.They fails, they die.for.good.

 

[positivedoppler]

Why has a thread title fury nano discussion now about hardware released 2 years ago?

 

[tential]

You do not need the source.
The CPU bottleneck speak for it self both on PS4 and Xbox one.Even a weak I3 is better.

Actually you do need a source to quote something as truth.... Plain and simple.

 

[tential]

It amazes me how tight the grouping for these cards are. There is barely separation between the 390x, the Fury and the Fury Nano outside of things like power usage. The cut down Fury is the odd duck out, but they have to do SOMETHING with the leftover silicon.

Seems like in retrospect a better move have been to NOT refresh the 390x (only have a 390) and then release the cut down Fury at around 390x prices. That would have created a LOT of enthusiasm for AMD in this current market.

You touch on the problem well. These prices are good for amd maximizing profits with small stock definitely.

From a consumer perception perspective though, amd will take a beating from those who are unhappy with pricing. And perception is amds main problem.

 

[darkewaffle]

Read about this on Ars, I hope it does well and catches on. I think the power savings alone are quite appealing.

 

[railven]

Okay, so I don't see any reviews and am basing this on the provided slides from AMD.

WTF was the whole point of Fury X? Seriously, if you're going to launch a smaller card, with almost similar clocks, and then add a slide that says "library quiet" WTF was the point in the water cooler?

If I had to guess, the Fury X is gonna get EOL'd rather quickly with the Nano taking the top spot.

 

[Pariah]

You touch on the problem well. These prices are good for amd maximizing profits with small stock definitely.

From a consumer perception perspective though, amd will take a beating from those who are unhappy with pricing. And perception is amds main problem.

Pricing indicates this will be a very low volume product. AMD's constant yapping about this being a premium product is further indication this will be a low availability product. When you know you aren't going to have any to sell, you can jack the price up as it makes more sense to annoy people with a high price and maximize your profits than price it too low a piss off a whole lot more people who can now afford it but can't find one to buy.

 

[Phynaz]

Okay, so I don't see any reviews and am basing this on the provided slides from AMD.

WTF was the whole point of Fury X? Seriously, if you're going to launch a smaller card, with almost similar clocks, and then add a slide that says "library quiet" WTF was the point in the water cooler?

If I had to guess, the Fury X is gonna get EOL'd rather quickly with the Nano taking the top spot.

Nano isn't going to perform the same as the X.

Notice AMD is quoting max clock speed, not real-world clock speeds.

 

[DaveSimmons]

WTF was the whole point of Fury X?

The point is (maybe) 850 MHz vs. 1050 MHz:

"AMD saying that under typical usage in most games it runs between 850MHz and 900MHz."
--- ArsTechnica's version of the press release

So 850-900 maybe, using weasel words "typical" and "most." Reviews might show much lower than that for games that AMD didn't cherry pick.

This looks like a nice card, but it is slower for the same cost. We'll see with real reviews how much slower.

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, so I don't see any reviews and am basing this on the provided slides from AMD.

WTF was the whole point of Fury X? Seriously, if you're going to launch a smaller card, with almost similar clocks, and then add a slide that says "library quiet" WTF was the point in the water cooler?

If I had to guess, the Fury X is gonna get EOL'd rather quickly with the Nano taking the top spot.

It makes me think we are missing some critical information between Fury X, Fury, and Fury Nano. Somewhere in there, it seems like we are not being told something important.

 

[Abwx]

The point is (maybe) 850 MHz vs. 1050 MHz:

"AMD saying that under typical usage in most games it runs between 850MHz and 900MHz."
--- ArsTechnica's version of the press release

So 850-900 maybe, using weasel words "typical" and "most." Reviews might show much lower than that for games that AMD didn't cherry pick.

This looks like a nice card, but it is slower for the same cost. We'll see with real reviews how much slower.

Ryan Smith version of the press relase :

AMD tells us that the typical gaming clock will be around the 900MHz range, with the precise value depending on the power requirements of the workload being run. As to why AMD is shipping the card at 1000MHz even when they don’t expect it to be able to sustain the clockspeed under most games, AMD tells us that the higher boost clock essentially ensures that the R9 Nano is only ever power limited, and isn’t unnecessarily held back in light workloads where it could support higher clockspeeds.

So it looks that all reviewers didnt exactly hear the same thing.

 

[ElFenix]

It makes me think we are missing some critical information between Fury X, Fury, and Fury Nano. Somewhere in there, it seems like we are not being told something important.

eh? all you need to know is that the fury nano is going to be thermally constrained well before fury x so it's not going to get to the same performance. however, since the chips are not only not cut down but probably better binned than fury x (able to operate at the lower voltages required to meet some minimum performance standard which is likely in the hawaii range), it was probably unreasonable for us to assume the price would be lower than fury x (watercooler cost aside).

 

[poofyhairguy]

You touch on the problem well. These prices are good for amd maximizing profits with small stock definitely.

From a consumer perception perspective though, amd will take a beating from those who are unhappy with pricing. And perception is amds main problem.

AMD just lacks a buzz or excitement right now. So many people here like to point out that not many people buy the Titans or even the 980 Tis, but what gets lost in that is all that is the GTX 960s that Nvidia sells because gamers see Nvidia getting praised everywhere (for the 980 ti). Excitement around the high-end products creates a halo around the entire lineup that pulls in low information consumers. AMD is missing this.

If the Fury X was $100 cheaper than the 980 Ti, or heck if we could just get aftermarket regular Furys for $400 people would be going bonkers right now about AMD. They would get so much praise, and so much excitement from people getting a $400 part that unlocked almost matches a $650 part that it would sell more of EVERYTHING- 390s, 380s, etc.

We want to think we make purchases based on logic, but everyone buys based on emotions. For some people knowing you have the fastest part for the money gives you that emotional satisfaction, for other people having a card with the same logo as the card that has everyone excited does it for them. We all just want to feel confident in our purchases, and Nvidia goes a LONG way via Gameworks and branding to convince low information consumers that they are the safe play.

Optimally AMD would stand out for overall performance, or huge tangible ingame advantages. But they don't- the 980 ti/Titan X wins at the top and Gameworks very directly erodes the natural advantage AMD has by sharing the consoles' architecture. The only way AMD can build excitement now is to give gamers such an incredible hardware value that they can't be ignored. That is what we now get with the 290s, but those are too little too late.

What gamers REALLY love is getting something they shouldn't have. We LOVE LOVE LOVE when a new bios can unlock something better than we paid for above and beyond overclocking. We love a lottery (Value milks that to the bone) and a feeling that we "got one" over the market (even though we still make a purchase). That regular Fury could really be a winner right now for that reason, it has all the makings of one. Problem is that it is priced so high that it's not like unlocking takes you from midrange to the high end, it is just shades of grey in the highend. If the regular Fury was 390x prices, then you are looking at at unlocking and overclocking taking you from midrange to the highend! AMD would make less per Fury, but all the excitement would sell a ton of 380s.

 

[DustinBrowder]

Actually I am planning to make a opinión thread about the incomming GPU dissasters... Because HBM.

We saw AMD failing HARD because the architecture and if that is not the cause (Fury Nano), the price is the killer one. AMD is also losing faith to the console makers.
Definately MS will ditch AMD due their dissaster called Xbox One. Maybe the next Gen will have a Kabylake i5 processor with 512 Mb HMC Memory for their iGPU.

But... NVIDIA doesn't have the experience on HBM and remember that in the beginning, the first card they release with new tech ends bad... Really bad. And maybe their 1st generation will be awful.

Intel on the other side has MANY advantages now... HMC is about to be mainstream. They have some NVIDIA licences, some of them, important to nVIDIA.
To make it better, they announced that Kabylake will be the FULL GPU revamp they expect in order to enter to the GPU race.
Finally, they are the monopoly and the competition will have a hard time with HBM. Also HBM2 will be hella expensive and HBM1 will be mid tier chips.

So Intel might be the ultimate winner sooner than expecting.

This is just the most absurd post I've ever read! From false information to complete and utter nonsense.

You understand the Xone and PS4 both use AMD right? Sony decided on better specs for the GPU and that is why they won the graphics battle, while MS focused on slower GPU, but add kinect and TV functionality.

Intel offers are really expensive and they don't have the GPU's, it doesn't make sense to go to Intel for a console at all. In fact it makes more sense to go to IBM or others for ARM processors that it would be to go for Intel.

It doesn't make any sense for any mass production console to go for Intel.

With AMD they get both CPU and GPU and its for the same company developed together.

 

[Azix]

Size is amazing for these cards now. To think nvidia was the first to run their mouths about compact GPUs yet AMD is the one that made it happen first.

This is what we will be seeing next year. Pretty cool. tiny cards everywhere

 

[n0x1ous]

It seems like even most of the smaller mini itx cases can still fit a 120mm radiator (like in linuses recent video with the silverstone case) and the nano itself isnt much smaller than the Fury X. So for the same money who really buys this over Fury X which is faster, cooler, more headroom, looks better, has backplate etc etc......

I don't get it......needs to be same price as regular Fury to make sense.....

 

[dark zero]

This is just the most absurd post I've ever read! From false information to complete and utter nonsense.

You understand the Xone and PS4 both use AMD right? Sony decided on better specs for the GPU and that is why they won the graphics battle, while MS focused on slower GPU, but add kinect and TV functionality.

Intel offers are really expensive and they don't have the GPU's, it doesn't make sense to go to Intel for a console at all. In fact it makes more sense to go to IBM or others for ARM processors that it would be to go for Intel.

It doesn't make any sense for any mass production console to go for Intel.

With AMD they get both CPU and GPU and its for the same company developed together.

Sadly Intel has money, NVIDIA licenses and influence.
Now that MS and Intel is marrying again, expecting to.see the next Xbox (if it survives) made exclusively with Intel and NVIDIA parts, like the original Xbox. Maybe a Core i5 with a Gtx 970 with insane low prices.

And it will perform up to 700% better than any AMD solution it has.

Give up.
AMD failed hard and deserves a cruel death.

 

[Headfoot]

Sadly Intel has money, NVIDIA licenses and influence.
Now that MS and Intel is marrying again, expecting to.see the next Xbox (if it survives) made exclusively with Intel and NVIDIA parts, like the original Xbox. Maybe a Core i5 with a Gtx 970 with insane low prices.

And it will perform up to 700% better than any AMD solution it has.

Give up.
AMD failed hard and deserves a cruel death.

ugh dude, no. they aren't going to build a high end pc and slap a sticker on it and call it the Xbox2. Its not going to happen for so many reasons its pointless to even try and type them out. there will never be a 970 class chip (read 400m2 chip) in a console so long as consoles sell for $400

 

[DaveSimmons]

Sadly Intel has money, NVIDIA licenses and influence.
Now that MS and Intel is marrying again, expecting to.see the next Xbox (if it survives) made exclusively with Intel and NVIDIA parts, like the original Xbox. Maybe a Core i5 with a Gtx 970 with insane low prices.

And it will perform up to 700% better than any AMD solution it has.

Give up.
AMD failed hard and deserves a cruel death.

This is not really appropriate for a discussion of the Fury Nano. Please start your own thread about future consoles, hopefully with more evidence to support these opinions.