There's a market for people with disposable income who could care less +/- a few hundred dollars as long as it has potential in the living room. I just dropped 6K this week fixing my car. This seems so insignificant now. Fun date with a girl I like, $200. Taking her home and having her see an fugly giant tower in the living room screaming of fan noise, is that worth saving a few hundred?
lol, it's why I want the Sapphire Fury Tri-X card since it's silent pretty much.
However, this little thing has peaked my interest. Until AMD started talking about it. Then I lost interest in it. AMD literally tried to make the Nano launch as horrendous as possible.
It takes effort to launch a product this poorly it truly does.
Fan Noise is nice I heard on the Tri-X, quieter somehow than AMD's reference Fury-X. I was interested in the FuryX and Tri-X until I saw the Nano. What idiotic thing did AMD do to F up the Nano?
Why do you feel the need to repeat this so much? Everyone read it the first few times you posted it.Not the card itself. The card itself I think is great.
That's why I'm still interested. AMD pitting a $650 card vs a $320 dollar card. WITHOUT saying the card is $650. Is highly misleading. That really upset a lot of consumers. A LOT of people were highly interested in the Nano actually. That alone cost AMD a ton of people. I've never seen people lose interest in a product so fast.
Then besides that, why would they not say "This is the Quiet Air Version of Fury X, 90% of the performance, $650 card". It just makes FAR MORE SENSE to state the card is that. It's the same chip, as Fury X. Instead, AMD keeps making references to GTX 970/980 and then prices the card above that range, oh, and drops the Fury/X moniker and just completely differentiates it with "Fury Nano". We're GPU enthusiasts, we understand Fury X and R9 Nano have the same chip.
On other places, where people are just GAMERS. They don't understand that. They see the R9 Nano as a chip on the level of a GTX 970/980 card, but really really freaking expensive.
I don't know how else to explain it other than with this analogy if you want my opinion on how gamers see this launch:
the R9 Nano launch (since it was pushed at e3 a lot of gamers did see that and were interested in the r9 nano) is like going to a dealership to get a car.
The dealer walks in, tells you he has a great car for you. It's better than the Honda Civic, AND the Honda Accord. Faster, sportier, smaller, it's the best.
The only catch? It'll be out 1 month from now. So you wait a month, get excited for this fast car. Then the dealer tells you how great it is, then says "It's the m3 BMW!!!!! FULL PRICE!!!!"
You were talking Honda range... and he pulls out an m3 BMW on you....
I don't know how to make it any more clear.
Why do you feel the need to repeat this so much? Everyone read it the first few times you posted it.
as a gamer, why would you limit your self to 450 watt? that is just weird. a 750watt modular psu(gold rated) can be had for as little as 60$ and it is something that would last you 5+ years, a min of 2 upgrade cycles or more.I had a GPU upgrade in the running for a LONG time (start of spring), but I was willing to wait for AMD's latest generation before I made a choice after nVidia released Maxwell. The 390 was the most appealing in the price/perf domain, but it worked against building my rig for power efficiency. It was also frustrating to find any relevant data on 390 power consumption when all the reviews put ridiculously overpowered units in their computers. And the reviews themselves are pretty sparse. Ultimately, I'm really annoyed that AMD chose to drag out the release all summer (Fury X2 not withstanding).
In another Nano thread I said the card only made sense in the $450-500 range, and I stand by it. If it can best the 980 in performance (i.e. not just at par), I could probably rationalize $550. For $650...I feel like I wasted my time. To add insult to injury, the Nano reveal was a paper launch and the actual retail launch was two weeks later. I got damned sick of waiting. It happens once every 4-5 generations but nVidia earned my money this upgrade cycle.
Tonight I dropped in a GTX 980 Poseidon in my main rig and am quite pleased with the performance. It's a bit more beastly than my 7870, but that was expected. My tower's gaming load with the 7870 was 210W, with the 980 it's 275W. The 390 would've certainly forced me to buy another PSU. And after rebate processing I'd have spent $440...I can work with that. I'm not saying the Nano is a bad piece of tech, just bad marketing and/or pricing.
it is like an abusive husband asking his wife why she doesn't love him anymore after a year of regular beatings
it is like an abusive husband asking his wife why she doesn't love him anymore after a year of regular beatings
Why yes, it's obvious why a site that ran only 4K benchmarks in their Fury X review and had more gaming evolved titles than TWIMTBP titles tested isn't getting a review sample.
Quite disgusting bias really. In order to be fair and balanced they should have only ran GE titles with all cards in an ITX case with only shader intensive effects turned on.
You said it m8, TR is biased in favor of AMD!
So AMD don't want to send them a sample.
So what's your argument exactly?
That AMD not sending a sample is proof of bias against AMD?
Because again let's be honest here, the review TR posted was more than fair (again only 4K testing done and a decent mix of titles) and their video content for the card was pretty much the most in depth of any site both pre and post launch. The David Kanter videos were extremely informative.
All this just makes me think that AMD doesn't actually want in depth coverage of their card.
No - he's saying that it doesn't make sense that AMD is nervous about TR's coverage because TR has been fairly positive about them in the past. I wonder if it's more because of review unit supply issues sadly. With the delay to September it seems like their August time frame was too ambitious? It seems like as time rolls on AMD is really missing a sales window with these cards before we move on to 16nm cards next year.
GOLD!!
http://techreport.com/news/28971/wanted-for-review-amd-radeon-r9-nano
These same guys who repeatedly find results that are so much worse for AMD than most other sites...
These same bunch who threw out Dirt Showdown for "bias" due to poor NV performance... but lavish praise on Project Cars..
The same site that finds XDMA CF stutters worse than SLI when every other site find the opposite...
About time AMD. Well played you guys, now you're catching on!
That isn't what he's saying.
/sarc sometimes doesn't work well over text. :d
Temps data in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJidWb1CDM
~65C under load.
/sarc sometimes doesn't work well over text. :d
Temps data in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJidWb1CDM
~65C under load.
AMD finally learning to be selective. Kudos to them.
Now, tin foil hat on, I wouldn't be surprised if that site runs a Fury X at gimped clocks and power tune down to "replicate" Fur Nano.
Or by the grace of NV they find themselves with a poorly working Nano.
Woof, I say.
EDIT:
Not sure if work PC is busted, that video didn't have sound right? I want to hear/see how loud the Nano can be.
To be fair, I did ask. I skipped through a lot of the Fury Nano price opinion thread. I can understand people being upset that it's a $650 card, but I never had any delusion about it. I thought it was fairly obvious from the start that this was a niche card meant for people who care more about form factor than price/performance. I guess if I flash myself back to when I was 19, in college, working with a limited budget, I'd be upset too if something that was so hyped ended up being priced out of my range. Yeah, it's like marketing a M3 for college kids on financial aid. In hindsight, AMD really should have put up a few slides hinting which market segment they were tossing the nano towards.