Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[Abwx]

You just cant face it, whatever AMD do, they drop the ball. They have to be the most inept technology company still in business, and probably half the reason most NV purchasers stay away from them.

Lol, the most inept company is the one that incured dozen billions losses to consumers when they decided to cash one billion or two selling chips that they knew were faulty...

So much for the inability to face it, apply your remark to yourself...

 

[Pariah]

Titan targeted a niche market. Shield portable, Shield tablet and Shield TV all targeted niche markets. GSync targets a niche market.

Titan targeted the niche market of rich people which is something I stated in the 3 sentences you quoted. Having done 3 generations of it, Nvidia is obviously pulling in some fat margins on a $1000 video card which is a market they have exclusive rights to. AMD tried with the 7990, and it failed miserably at that price. The other things aren't video cards and aren't relevant to this discussion.

 

[soccerballtux]

yeah, AMD is stupid to leave that market untapped IMO. One of the benefits of having a mature driver is you can produce top-end hardware like that creating a new market and just take the cake from the crazies.

 

[tential]

I don't understand the performance/watt thing in a desktop PC. I mean if I'm going to drop the cash on a sports car for racing, why would gas mileage be at the top of my priority list and not performance? The only time I see wattage being a big deal is when it gets out of hand like it does when over-volting a Fury for little gain.

That's why those who are heavily pro amd can't understand why the 290x vs the 980 people complained about power consumption but no one is worrying as much with fury x vs the 980ti.

People care when it's a "big" difference.

When it's on par, it's not a big deal.

Of course nvidia does a mastermind job releasing their reference product at an amazing power consumption while their partners then destroy that perf/watt with heavily oced cards.
Then nvidia has amazing power consumption and performance numbers to quote from.

 

[tuskers]

I think the Nano is actually targeted at a bigger niche than people assume. But that niche isn't gamers, although it will be available to those with mini-ITX or low-power needs.

The only people who care about performance per watt are compute-centric workstations and servers. They can't sell Fury X with water-coolers as dealing with those at scale (particularly replacing them) or in professional environments doesn't work for basic maintenance. They can't sell the Fury (or other traditional graphics cards) because of their huge heatsinks and length.

So you see the Nano, with an IT-friendly marketing name (as opposed to Fury, which only has relevance for gamers), optimized performance per watt, in a small form factor with traditional cooling.

Oh, I'd also like to see what the Crossfire performance here would be. It might be an ideal card for CF; you may not need to buy a new PSU and case to support it like you do with the Fury X radiators or the Fury/980Ti's card size, and you may see performance even higher, percentage-wise, compared to the single card ratios.

 

[Enigmoid]

I think the Nano is actually targeted at a bigger niche than people assume. But that niche isn't gamers, although it will be available to those with mini-ITX or low-power needs.

Oh no, there is definitely a market for SFF. Its just that at $650 you are pricing yourself out of the majority of that market.

 

[thilanliyan]

I don't understand the performance/watt thing in a desktop PC. I mean if I'm going to drop the cash on a sports car for racing, why would gas mileage be at the top of my priority list and not performance? The only time I see wattage being a big deal is when it gets out of hand like it does when over-volting a Fury for little gain.

In my case, I would always go for a lower wattage card (assuming other features and pricing are similar) because it's easier to cool. I value a quiet PC very much and so have invested in custom watercooling so cooling most cards is not an issue for me, but higher wattage cards would mean I have to turn the fans up a bit, which I don't like doing.

 

[AtenRa]

Oh no, there is definitely a market for SFF. Its just that at $650 you are pricing yourself out of the majority of that market.

No

There is another AMD SFF card at lower price, the R9 380 ITX.
Now AMD has lower priced SFF card than GTX-970 Mini AND higher priced SFF card with the Fury Nano.

Sapphire R9 380 ITX

 

[tential]

No

There is another AMD SFF card at lower price, the R9 380 ITX.
Now AMD has lower priced SFF card than GTX-970 Mini AND higher priced SFF card with the Fury Nano.

Sapphire R9 380 ITX

Can you show availability? I'm sure this is the first time many of us have heard of this product.

Heh, amd that's the bread and butter mini itx card.

I really don't understand why so many people who are fans of amd agree with r9 nano being pitted against the 970 though. This is amds premium line. Nano and 970 should have never been in the same sentence.... No one talks about a m3 BMW and Honda civic in the same sentence... That was such a big marketing mistake to me.

 

[richierich1212]

Can you show availability? I'm sure this is the first time many of us have heard of this product.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202151&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

Their 285 ITX has been available before this updated one as well.

 

[AtenRa]

Can you show availability? I'm sure this is the first time many of us have heard of this product.

Heh, amd that's the bread and butter mini itx card.

I really don't understand why so many people who are fans of amd agree with r9 nano being pitted against the 970 though. This is amds premium line. Nano and 970 should have never been in the same sentence.... No one talks about a m3 BMW and Honda civic in the same sentence... That was such a big marketing mistake to me.

Fury Nano + 30% FASTER than GTX 970 Mini. That is what the PDF is advertising.

That also means Nano is 10-15% FASTER than GTX980

That also means Nano has 80-90% performance at 4K of GTX 980Ti AT LOWER POWER AND smaller size.

They also had the following slide,
That means you can have a 30% FASTER system than the GTX970 at the same SFF case.

OR

You can have 80-90% of the GTX980Ti at 4K at a very slim SFF case, something you cannot do with the GTX980 Ti.

 

[ShintaiDK]

How about we wait for benches. The Fury X already failed in relation to what AMD promised on several points.

 

[thesmokingman]

It's coming in half height?? :\

 

[AtenRa]

It's coming in half height?? :\

yea my bad, no it is not unfortunately

ill fix my post.

 

[Abwx]

Fury Nano + 30% FASTER than GTX 970 Mini. That is what the PDF is advertising.

How much are worth 30% more perfs within Nvidia line up as comparison..?.

50% more expensive..?...70%.?.

Also if ever the competition try something they can release a 3584SPs mini Nano, that would be an appealing card, but i guess that currently it would cannibalize the regular Nano.

 

[Absolute0]

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.

etc

good posting

Ya, that's true. I was expecting a price of $449, maybe $499 but $649 is way too high. The other thing is they are putting the best binned Fiji XT chips inside but apparently have a 175W hard power limit? They should have at least allowed the full 225W power limit.

Honestly, they should have given this card a dual personality. Why not add a 6+8-pin connector and force it to run at 175W power limit on BIOS 1 but have BIOS 2 (Uber BIOS) that unlocked full potential for 250-300W TDP? This way someone could easily pay $649 for the best binned Fiji XT GPU and slap their own water-block/AIO CLC but get benefit of the least leaky Fiji XT chips.

Good idea & also good posting - why not give the option to turbo up past 175? Let people put their own coolers on. Kinda plays into what poofyhairguy said about letting customers feel like they got 1-up on the market; something special where you can "unlock" more performance

So what was AMD's actual purpose for Fury X? With Nano now at the same price point, even if it comes in at say 85-95% performance it is, in my opinion, far more appealing to the general buyer than Fury X.

There's always a clash of the titans at the top of the GPU food chain. The winner builds the image of brand superiority, which does, well, exactly as stated in my first quote here, "pulls in low information consumers" to buy that brand

I think some of the problem is AMD self-delusion- they really thought the Fury X was a better GPU than the best Nvidia has. If they could be a little more honest with themselves maybe the first Fury card was the X2 JUST so they could steal the "best performing single card" Halo. An X2 with watercooling would have highlighted all the best parts of the Fury X (crossfire performance) while giving AMD a very obvious excuse for its overclocking deficiency. It just feels like a case of misjudging what they have and why cards sell in this market.

I LOVE the idea of making this architecture an X2 type. The small physical dimensions, low power and noise make it easy to carry over into an X2 design - add in the water cooler and it would be an awesome buy and take the performance crown.

Instead, it was R9 Nano, 30% faster than a GTX 970 Mini! 200% the price!!!!!!!!

Rather than R9 Fury X Nano, 95% of the Fury X performance. Same Price!

Most people believed this would be a cheaper product due to the positioning and marketing of R9 Nano. It was a far more premium product than originally anticipated due to stupid comparisons to vastly cheaper products.

Haha yeah, well their comparison makes me wonder if it's really going to be deliverying 90-something % of Fury X's performance - I mean we have yet to see real benchmarks and clockspeeds.



Now as everyone has said, price is too high. What really grabs my attention is the 970 ITX comparison:
Their comparison showing it being, in AMD's BEST-CASE SCENARIO, Fury Nano ~30% faster than a downclocked 970, where GTX970 has been going on sale for $300.
This benchmark taking place at 4K, which I'm guessing 3.5 gb 970 is not the strongest at...? And certainly few peope are buying a GTX 970 to play at 4K.

The comparison just seems all kinda of wrong.

Most people spending $650 want top-of-the-line performance. I suppose I don't understand the SFF pc market enough, I don't see where you'd want to build a box where physical space it at an absolute premium and you can't even fit a mid-sized tower. But you're willing to spend $650 on graphics?
Aren't most people spending that $650+ on graphics pairing it with either large 1080p TV's, or 27++ inch monitors, or dual monitors, or 3 monitors? I guess I am having a hard time understanding the premium for space that a few inches of GPU PCB represents.

Again when I think of the size and efficiency of nano, it makes me think it's better off as an X2 or CF type card - then you can gear it towards performance users without drawing 400+ watts.

A lot of AMD vs. nVidia here. I have gone TI4400 -> 6800GT -> X850XTPE -> 7900GT -> GTX285 -> 7970 -> 980TI. So mostly NV but I've dipped into the red side. I think half the reason I'm back on the NV side though is I just like the interface of their drivers more. A lot more. Couldn't stand CCC. Also my 7970 was the loudest card I've ever had. I put it under water immediately; my cooler was obnoxious.

I think with some of their lineups, AMD has made themselves known, to the "low-information consumers," as the brand that's hotter and louder, but cheaper. IMO their translates to AMD being the choice of budget gamers, which I think is consistent with AMD overall. Maybe Nano can help change this stigma (when lower-end versions are released)?

At the top end, I see Fury X trading blows with the 980 TI at the same price. But the 980 TI clocks like a beast to greater highs, and does so without needing to install the water cooler. When I'm spending $650+ I want the best performance and 980 TI does this with overclocking. Fury X is clocked aggressively with about no headroom left, which for me takes away all the fun of water cooling. For me, this go-round, my $$$ went to the green team with the 980 TI and I know from looking at signatures that there's a ton of people in this boat.

I cross my fingers and hope for AMD that they do well however and their investment in HBM pays off.

 

[tential]

Fury Nano + 30% FASTER than GTX 970 Mini. That is what the PDF is advertising.

That also means Nano is 10-15% FASTER than GTX980

That also means Nano has 80-90% performance at 4K of GTX 980Ti AT LOWER POWER AND smaller size.

They also had the following slide,
That means you can have a 30% FASTER system than the GTX970 at the same SFF case.

OR

You can have 80-90% of the GTX980Ti at 4K at a very slim SFF case, something you cannot do with the GTX980 Ti.

You're missing my point I don't know how else as a person who loves luxury to describe this to you.

My point is gtx 970 isn't a luxury product. Like I said in other posts. Nano is a first of its kind product at 650. You know how little I care about the performance of a civic compared to my Mercedes? Nothing. I get mad even thinking about putting the 2 in the Dae sentence. You think a 980ti sounds good against a gtx 960? A 980ti buyer never had the 960 on their mind.

You think anyone is paying 200% over a gtx 970 for nano because of 30% faster. No... Lol.

Youre gtx 980ti comparison. That's what nano needs to be compared to other 650 products. When you say to me as a luxury consumer that it's 85%-90% of 980ti/fury x performance for the same price in a 175w package it's far more appealing..

I'm not sure why this basic marketing tenant is escaping you and many others.

It's like saying the glass is 3/4s full vs 1/4 empty. They mean the same things yes. But people are more happy to get a 3/4 full glass than a 1/4th empty one.

How can you not see that drawing comparisons to a 650+ product is a better comparison for nano marketing wise than drawing comparisons to a gtx 970 that no one is considering when they look at nano. No one.... Its not the same price range, performance class, etc. It's like comparing a gtx 980ti to a gtx 970 because it's the same size chip. Vastly different price brackets.....

 

[redzo]

Fury Nano + 30% FASTER than GTX 970 Mini. That is what the PDF is advertising.

That also means Nano is 10-15% FASTER than GTX980

That also means Nano has 80-90% performance at 4K of GTX 980Ti AT LOWER POWER AND smaller size.

They also had the following slide,
That means you can have a 30% FASTER system than the GTX970 at the same SFF case.

OR

You can have 80-90% of the GTX980Ti at 4K at a very slim SFF case, something you cannot do with the GTX980 Ti.

I don't think that anybody is denying the fact that the nano will end up faster than the 970. System builders go for the cheapest instinctively. The result is that nvidia gains even more market share and probably profits more than AMD by selling a crap load of cheaper mini 970's, than AMD profiting from a few high priced nano's.
But the entire point of this lines is useless, since I suspect that the nano is a low volume product anyways.

Now moving to the educated buyers like the ones surfing this forum,
Everybody knows that the 980 is of bad value. Most of the people(new buyers) are aiming either for the 970 or for the 980ti price/performance class, AMD competing products included.

 

[crisium]

Most people believed this would be a cheaper product due to the positioning and marketing of R9 Nano. It was a far more premium product than originally anticipated due to stupid comparisons to vastly cheaper products.

This is the worst thing about the comparisons AMD did in their marketing slide. AMD compares its performance to the 290X, a card that was $550 in 2013 and is currently $300 or so. Then they compare it to the 970, a card that was $330 in 2014. Then they launch it at $650? What exactly is it that they are trying to say?

 

[redzo]

This is the worst thing about the comparisons AMD did in their marketing slide. AMD compares its performance to the 290X, a card that was $550 in 2013 and is currently $300 or so. Then they compare it to the 970, a card that was $330 in 2014. Then they launch it at $650? What exactly is it that they are trying to say?

They are trying to say:
This is our mini gpu Titan! Low volume, high priced, but the fastest in its mini itx class!

 

[LTC8K6]

30% faster at double the price?

$312 with a $20 rebate for a 970 mini, so $292:

http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GeForce-Overclocked-GDDR5-GV-N970IXOC-4GD/dp/B00OQUMGM0

 

[Absolute0]

The "30%" even in question because this is AMD's settings at 4K. It's their manufactured best-case scenario.

More accurate would be "up to 30% faster than ITX 970"

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

You will recall that AMD also released benchmarks for the R9 Fury X ahead of the reviews, and those numbers showed the R9 Fury X consistently beating the GeForce GTX 980 Ti across a range of games. But when we measured the Fury X's performance ourselves, the numbers told a different story:
[graphic]
The reason for the difference in FPS averages was clear when we looked back at the footnotes of AMD's document supplying the numbers. The firm tested the cards with a very particular formula in order to achieve its results for the Fury X—and it has carried over that formula when generating the R9 Nano results you see above. The basic approach is to test exclusively in 4K with high-quality shader effects and post-process anti-aliasing, but to soft-pedal on texture filtering and mulitsampled edge anti-aliasing.

Here's how AMD says it tested the games in the Nano benchmark results above, based on the footnotes of its presentation:
[graphic]
That's a pretty weird combination of settings, all things considered. 4K is one of the highest resolutions you can get in a display today, and yet we've compromised dramatically on image quality via low-rent texture filtering and edge AA methods.

which is why i think their comparison is all kinds of wrong

 

[ShintaiDK]

They are trying to say:
This is our mini gpu Titan! Low volume, high priced, but the fastest in its mini itx class!

The card like the different mini/itx branded cards as such got nothing to do with MiniITX. The vast majority of sold MiniITX based systems support full length cards.

 

[el etro]

The high price indicates two possibilities:

1) Very big binning process made for chosing the very best Fiji chips(i persobally think that not so much);

2) And/Or card is really, really expensive to manufacture(the most probable thing that happened).

It only was priced $50 cheaper...

 

[AtenRa]

30% faster at double the price?

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