The truth that your full of numbers and information
I'll take that as a compliment. Yes, I believe it's better to be as informed as possible to actually have data backing up what I state vs. often baseless opinions posted by various posters. I still remember how you were dead wrong on bitcoin mining for 5 years straight despite all the data provided to you by myself and various posters. Ever since, it's been very clear to me you do not like it when people prove you wrong with hard data which I suppose is why you don't like to see data being used to undermine your position on any GPU recommendations.
but you hardly ever have nothing good to say about ..............
That's your opinion. If you do not like what I say, put me on ignore. In any event, instead of addressing my post, you discuss me as a person and bring AMD billboard cheer-leading into the discussion when I specifically provided evidence of how the current
rumors were discussing the Nano's reveal dates.
like a walking AMD billboared
I am pretty sure I've recommended more NV cards and posted way more deals on NV cards since I've joined this forum that you
ever have. I would take any bet on that. But at the same time I've recommended people great ATI/AMD cards over the years and bitcoin mining which hopefully got them a superior product and made them some $. I have both NV and AMD GPUs in my desktop PCs. But keep on believing in some crazy mantra that I am a walking AMD billboard whenever you do not like when I speak the truth about bad products like GTX750Ti/950/960 (as well as 285/380/Fury X from AMD, etc.). Of course you never see me criticize both camps or recommend both camps depending on which products are worth buying.
that mabe the Nano is delayed.
Please do tell us when AMD announced an official launch date for the Nano? For Nano to be delayed, AMD would have needed to commit to a certain date. Using this logic, I'll just go ahead and claim that GTX780Ti was delayed by nearly a year and GTX980Ti was delayed by at least 8 months. Funny how 'delays' work in your world.
When your snide remarks on XFX's current lack of knowledge on Nano's hard launch were addressed with announcement date =! hard launch, you ignored those comments. Furthermore, depending on the availability, not all AIBs may get dibs on the Nano. Only Asus and Sapphire are currently allowed to sell the Fury cards. In that case I guess XFX would also to this date have no idea when the Fury is launching, right?
is this his other account or are you his mommy?
Yet another disrespectful comment to another forum member, instead of you actually addressing the topic at hand.
TBH, I stopped reading RS's posts a long time ago, when I got tired of the cut and paste wall of text as I couldnt be bothered trying to got clarify his numbers, but hey, lap it up mate!
I didn't expect you to pay attention to my posts after I started criticizing NV's poor price/performance and pricing mid-range cards at high-end. When I was praising and recommending GeForce 3, 4, 6, 8, GTX200 and 400 series, I sure do remember you agreeing with me. The reason you stopped reading my posts have little to do with you trying to clarify the information I post. We know what the real answer is.
There goes the hope of a price of USD 450 for R9 Nano. If its a fully enabled Fiji there is no way AMD are going to price this card at anything less than USD 500-550. USD 500 would be ok if it can match ref 980. Whats going to be interesting is how does the stock cooler handle overclocking (noise/temps) and whats the perf gain from OC.
Well we don't know for sure. Logically you are correct but then again AMD has surprised us in the past with HD5850, HD6950 and R9 290 and even the Fury non-X. All of those 2nd tier cards made the high-end card seem not really worth it. Something isn't adding up though -- if the Nano is an up to 1Ghz Fury X in a 175W power envelope, it's either the best binned Fiji chip they have in their line-up or the 175W is just a marketing TDP. Otherwise, if AMD prices it at $450, get a $50 CLC and you basically have a Fury X for $150 less. There seems to be some missing information.
The standard Fury X layout for a full chip has 8 ACEs for compute:
AMD clearly lists Fury X as having 8 Asynchronous Compute Engines (0-7):
The supposedly leaked Nano slides have 4 ACEs on the diagram as well as in the description:
I am not sure if this is an error or a fake slide or the Nano does have some flawed/disabled ACE parts other than the traditional shaders, TMUs and ROPs. Otherwise, it's hard to explain how a fully unlocked 1Ghz Nano is only 5-10% faster than a 290X.