Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[LTC8K6]

This is seriously faceplam for those recommending GTX 980 over Fury. A stock Fury is equivalent to around 1500Mhz GTX 980's speed... All without the cons of overclocking.

But AMD told us that Fury was an overclocker's dream, so why doesn't overclocking count?

Why is it a con now? :biggrin:

 

[desprado]

But AMD told us that Fury was an overclocker's dream, so why doesn't overclocking count?

Why is it a con now? :biggrin:

Dreams are not reality.

AMD knows that.

 

[RussianSensation]

Also, the Nano could open opportunities for manufacturers to make very small form factor PCs that aren't even available right now, which means we can't see the true potential of having a 6-inch card by using cases like SUGO08 which are not really miniITX cases. Sure, in the past this could have been considered a small MiniITX case but the times have moved on.

vs.

It's essentially a chicken and an egg scenario - without 6-inch flagship cards, case makers won't make an even smaller miniITX case but they could if there were GPUs that could fit inside.

There is NO way to make a miniITX case this small with a GPU this powerful right now but it's possible with the Nano. Will someone make such a product for retail? Maybe but even if not this generation then in the future once HBM2 becomes mainstream. Who did it first though? AMD with the Nano. And that's why it costs $650 because it's an early adopter product that redefines what's possible in a 6-inch PCB as of right now.

If the Nano had 8-16GB of HBM2, that thing would immediately find its way in the next generation MacPro tower. I feel that HBM1 is really what held back the true potential this design to make it to the high-end but at least now AMD has full experience with HBM1 and they will be ready to go with HBM2 in desktops and laptops.

Once AMD launches Fury X2, NV may not have an answer to this card until Pascal, just like NV lost to the R9 295X2 with the Titan Z and with GTX690 vs. HD7990. The Nano is essentially just 1/2 of Fury X2 which means AMD should have no problem creating a monster single GPU Fury X2 once they bin enough Furies.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why wouldn't we put just Fury X in the little PC like AMD did? The card cost is the same.

 

[casiofx]

But AMD told us that Fury was an overclocker's dream, so why doesn't overclocking count?

Why is it a con now? :biggrin:

Stop twisting my words.

I stated a stock fury is as fast as 1500Mhz GTX980
What it means you don't have to go through the cons of overclocking to have fast performance.

I did not state or refer a single thing about fury being heavily overclockable. Stop thread crapping.

 

[tential]

Lol RS, that's how my setup is. Approaching that 5 digit mark...

I'm just stingy because I won't game much on my setup I NEVER do. But I want a great GPU because I don't buy crappy products. My whole setup is premium, everything about it. Even the movie/TV selection is extremely over the top.

As a consumer, I develop value based on perception, AMD's representation of the product, has left me with a perception that is isn't worth $650.

It was my only critical analysis that PUSHED me to spend the money to the R9 Fury level as that's the only way I can do what I want.

Otherwise, I would have a GTX 980Ti now, and be downsampling on my projector, rather than buying a second screen in an apartment bedroom. My 70 inch HDTV isn't even shipped here yet... I need to dial it down lol.... I am acquiring way too many large displays way too fast.

Edit: One look at Fury X... that's a premium product... jesus AMD that's such an easy sell the beauty is there, you could have knocked it out of the park with that boy.

 

[Absolute0]

If the Nano had 8-16GB of HBM2, that thing would immediately find its way in the next generation MacPro tower. I feel that HBM1 is really what held back the true potential this design to make it to the high-end but at least now AMD has full experience with HBM1 and they will be ready to go with HBM2 in desktops and laptops.

Once AMD launches Fury X2, NV may not have an answer to this card until Pascal, just like NV lost to the R9 295X2 with the Titan Z and with GTX690 vs. HD7990. The Nano is essentially just 1/2 of Fury X2 which means AMD should have no problem creating a monster single GPU Fury X2 once they bin enough Furies.

^I think that's a good point. Apple is a good example of how people will pay a lot for sleek aesthetics and smaller/more efficiency is the name of the game for the industry as a whole - beyond the hardcore gamers.

Thanks for the pictures - I think some of those setups gave us all something to aspire to but it'll be a while before the monetary premium for the aesthetics is worth it for myself.

I wonder if the wireless technology gets to the point where you wouldn't even *NEED* your PC to be in the living room anymore. Pretty soon it's why not keep the PC in another room, have wireless KB/mouse in the living room. Maybe you'd have to run the HDMI cable to the TV but that's about it.

 

[tential]

Fury X2 at $1000 would be nice....

Lol come on AMD give us some good value at some price point.
Edit: I should have never had this thought....

 

[thesmokingman]

It's amazing how small that X2 is. It's still a bit smaller than current and previous gen single gpu cards. And at that size I can see it going into mitx builds just for the giggles.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

It's amazing how small that X2 is. It's still a bit smaller than current and previous gen single gpu cards. And at that size I can see it going into mitx builds just for the giggles.

Looks smaller then my 770 for sure.

 

[Glo.]

If the Nano had 8-16GB of HBM2, that thing would immediately find its way in the next generation MacPro tower. I feel that HBM1 is really what held back the true potential this design to make it to the high-end but at least now AMD has full experience with HBM1 and they will be ready to go with HBM2 in desktops and laptops.

The specific Device ID is already in OS X El Capitan Beta. And its specifically tailored and linked to the Mac Pro. So it looks like October announcement, late 2015 preorders and Q1 2016 deliveries of new Mac Pro with Broadwell - EP CPUs DDR4 2400 MHz, fast SSD and Fiji GPUs inside.

 

[Pariah]

It sure seems to be his own made up definition.

http://www.silverstonetek.com/product_case.php?tno=0&case=c_sff&area=en

The funny part is, if you select cases with 7.9" cards or shorter. The Nano wont fit either due to singleslot/low profile.

This post appears to be one of the most damning cases against the point of AMD creating this card. Oddly (or not), it has largely been ignored by the few staunch supporters of this card.

Some of you have been spamming the term SFF and how the Nano is the most powerful of these cards, yet at no point have you actually demonstrated a real world case of where this is actually useful to the point that the competition can't be used.

The form factor that the Nano uses for all intents and purposes has not existed until this card is released. As such, there are no retail cases to my knowledge that take advantage of its size. Pretty much all SFF enthusiast cases, which I define as a case that is designed to use a motherboard no larger than a micro ATX board, support full length cards. The majority of HTPC cases do as well, and those that don't, as Shintai has pointed out, don't support dual slot cards.

So for those of you that keep harping on the fastest SFF claim. Can you provide a selection of retail cases that without any modifications can accommodate a Nano, while not being large enough for a standard sized card?


I also find it interesting RS, that you are able to constantly come up with these wall of text responses to the most brief and inane posts, yet you have been called out twice in this thread for posting clearly factually inaccurate information and somehow managed to completely ignore both of them.

 

[casiofx]

This post appears to be one of the most damning cases against the point of AMD creating this card. Oddly (or not), it has largely been ignored by the few staunch supporters of this card.

Some of you have been spamming the term SFF and how the Nano is the most powerful of these cards, yet at no point have you actually demonstrated a real world case of where this is actually useful to the point that the competition can't be used.

The form factor that the Nano uses for all intents and purposes has not existed until this card is released. As such, there are no retail cases to my knowledge that take advantage of its size. Pretty much all SFF enthusiast cases, which I define as a case that is designed to use a motherboard no larger than a micro ATX board, support full length cards. The majority of HTPC cases do as well, and those that don't, as Shintai has pointed out, don't support dual slot cards.

So for those of you that keep harping on the fastest SFF claim. Can you provide a selection of retail cases that without any modifications can accommodate a Nano, while not being large enough for a standard sized card?


I also find it interesting RS, that you are able to constantly come up with these wall of text responses to the most brief and inane posts, yet you have been called out twice in this thread for posting clearly factually inaccurate information and somehow managed to completely ignore both of them.

I've personally seen those 11 inch cards squeezed into SFF cases and the cabling doesn't look good, bent cables, questionable clearances just to name a few.

EDIT: The PSU cables also have to be bent to accomodate the GPU, the casing is a bitfenix btw.

 

[3DVagabond]

I've personally seen those 11 inch cards squeezed into SFF cases and the cabling doesn't look good, bent cables, questionable clearances just to name a few.

EDIT: The PSU cables also have to be bent to accomodate the GPU, the casing is a bitfenix btw.

I feel your point.
Have you noticed Fury X is no good because you have to find a 120mm fan mount for the rad (most cases have one)? Nano isn't needed though because you can shoehorn a standard card into an SFF case. These two opinions seem to be at odds but are often shared by the same people.

 

[Qwertilot]

Don't think the question is whether there's a reason to have cards this small, its whether there's a market for ones so fast/very expensive.

It really isn't obvious - the short 960's/970's tend to be among the cheapest models of their type.

I'd tend to worry about the noise myself - 175w is probably still a little much for one fan.

The small 960's can seemingly stay very quiet but the 970's seem to struggle slightly more and this is a bit more power again. Two fans would be able to do 'silent'.

 

[sxr7171]

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

What is UEFI mode for GPUs?

 

[sxr7171]

^I think that's a good point. Apple is a good example of how people will pay a lot for sleek aesthetics and smaller/more efficiency is the name of the game for the industry as a whole - beyond the hardcore gamers.

Thanks for the pictures - I think some of those setups gave us all something to aspire to but it'll be a while before the monetary premium for the aesthetics is worth it for myself.

I wonder if the wireless technology gets to the point where you wouldn't even *NEED* your PC to be in the living room anymore. Pretty soon it's why not keep the PC in another room, have wireless KB/mouse in the living room. Maybe you'd have to run the HDMI cable to the TV but that's about it.

That's how I have my setup. HDMI over Cat5. Wireless Xbox 360 controller. Lenovo N5902.

 

[Qwertilot]

One thing I do hope this does do is make the idea of really short GFX cards more credible.

There's reasons for stuff this powerful to maybe want two fans, but there's definitely not much objective reason for a 960 class (in TDP terms) chip to come in any other format.

 

[SolMiester]

Google bump gate so we wont have to pollute the thead with this OT, while you ll get an idea of what is inepty...

Dude, you need to read what inept means first...oh what is inepty anyway?...and please, bumpgate, how many years ago was that....NV isnt the inept company losing money hand over fist, or falling on their faces with their last 3 GPU releases, let alone their CPU division....LMAO...

Pascal with NV link to resolve SLI finger bottleneck, and HBM will be the nail in the coffin for AMD.

 

[monstercameron]

Dude, you need to read what inept means first...oh what is inepty anyway?...and please, bumpgate, how many years ago was that....NV isnt the inept company losing money hand over fist, or falling on their faces with their last 3 GPU releases, let alone their CPU division....LMAO...

Pascal with NV link to resolve SLI finger bottleneck, and HBM will be the nail in the coffin for AMD.

.....

Call outs are not allowed in the technical forums
Moderator Subyman

 

[caswow]

Dude, you need to read what inept means first...oh what is inepty anyway?...and please, bumpgate, how many years ago was that....NV isnt the inept company losing money hand over fist, or falling on their faces with their last 3 GPU releases, let alone their CPU division....LMAO...

Pascal with NV link to resolve SLI finger bottleneck, and HBM will be the nail in the coffin for AMD.

i dont think you know what nvlink is

 

[Skurge]

Dude, you need to read what inept means first...oh what is inepty anyway?...and please, bumpgate, how many years ago was that....NV isnt the inept company losing money hand over fist, or falling on their faces with their last 3 GPU releases, let alone their CPU division....LMAO...

Pascal with NV link to resolve SLI finger bottleneck, and HBM will be the nail in the coffin for AMD.

Using "LMAO" on a tech forum. Way to get your point across.

 

[guskline]

A thought occurred to me with Nano and it is this. Despite the mentioned price, is the real purpose of Nano to show the future of AMD getting away from the Hawaii chips with DDR ram and moving the entire lineup of higher end AMD gpus, if not all of them to HBM?

Obviously the price of Nano is way high right now but think about it. The FuryX shows water cooling, the Fury shows a reference card for modders and now the Nano shows a gpu for smaller cases. ALL the same Fiji chip.

 

[jpiniero]

A thought occurred to me with Nano and it is this. Despite the mentioned price, is the real purpose of Nano to show the future of AMD getting away from the Hawaii chips with DDR ram and moving the entire lineup of higher end AMD gpus, if not all of them to HBM?

Given how little money AMD has, any new GPUs from AMD will have HBM and only HBM. If HBM doesn't make sense for cost or availability reasons you will see more rebrands.

 

[3DVagabond]

Given how little money AMD has, any new GPUs from AMD will have HBM and only HBM. If HBM doesn't make sense for cost or availability reasons you will see more rebrands.

I don't think it has anything to do with money. AMD doesn't design for older tech. They jump into the newest and latest with 2 feet. It's not always to their benefit because the industry doesn't move with them.