R9 Nano price drop

[Magic Carpet]

I just bought a R9 Fury Nano today for a new SFF/Mini-ITX build..

Congrats. What about the coil whine, does it have any?

 

[tential]

The Nano is cheaper than the 980 now in the UK. Prices correct at time of posting.

360 - £239
970 - £244
390X - £300
Nano - £350
980 - £374
Fury - £410
Fury X - £470
980 Ti - £500

Nano is now the best value card of the lot probably.

Wow nano is a great deal at those prices....

My question is isn't fury even cheaper than nano to produce? Why not cut the price there too? It doesn't make sense with it being more expensive than nano unless I'm mixing up their performance.

Looks more and more like fiji prices will drop to a point where maybe I'll get it. But still gotta see Polaris....

 

[3DVagabond]

Wow nano is a great deal at those prices....

My question is isn't fury even cheaper than nano to produce? Why not cut the price there too? It doesn't make sense with it being more expensive than nano unless I'm mixing up their performance.

Looks more and more like fiji prices will drop to a point where maybe I'll get it. But still gotta see Polaris....

Supply and demand. I would imagine if they had a lot of harvested chips laying around they'd cut prices. Keep in mind that they've cut the price, pretty dramatically, of the top binned chip.

 

[Silverforce11]

Nano is really good at these prices. It's the only Fiji chip where OC is easy, simply raising the power limit will yield extra performance.

It's too bad Polaris is arriving soon, else I would jump on board with a pair of Nanos. :/

 

[Headfoot]

It seems like it would be all-around better to put your own AIO water cooler and quality VRM heatsinks on a Nano and overclock than to buy a Fury X now, since it sounds like the Fury X VRMs get pretty hot even with that little watercooling bar over it

 

[njdevilsfan87]

The Nano I bought for my SFF build has atrocious coil whine. The worst I've ever heard of any part I've ever had by far. It's going back. :\

 

[tential]

Supply and demand. I would imagine if they had a lot of harvested chips laying around they'd cut prices. Keep in mind that they've cut the price, pretty dramatically, of the top binned chip.

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll mention it here since it's even more relevant here.

The current price structure of chips leaves NOTHING for Nvidia. You'd be throwing money down the drain buying any chip but the 980Ti right now.
Otherwise, the R9 390 is almost as fast as a GTX 980, for far less. The R9 390x is around $350 right now. It's FASTER than GTX 980.
The R9 Nano is $450, and is significantly faster than a GTX 980.

ALL ARE CHEAPER THAN THE GTX 980.

Too bad it's so late in this GPU cycle, but AMD has the best deals now for anyone who needs a GPU now.

 

[tviceman]

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll mention it here since it's even more relevant here.

The current price structure of chips leaves NOTHING for Nvidia. You'd be throwing money down the drain buying any chip but the 980Ti right now.
Otherwise, the R9 390 is almost as fast as a GTX 980, for far less. The R9 390x is around $350 right now. It's FASTER than GTX 980.
The R9 Nano is $450, and is significantly faster than a GTX 980.

ALL ARE CHEAPER THAN THE GTX 980.

Too bad it's so late in this GPU cycle, but AMD has the best deals now for anyone who needs a GPU now.

I wholly agree with your statement on who has the best deals on the market, but saying the 390x is faster than the 980 is incorrect, IMO. A 390x is faster than a stock 980 at 1440p and 4k, but stock 980's are uncommon and even then 980's overclock and easily to surpass the 390x at 1440p and at 4k. It's still not worth the $120 price difference though.

Nvidia's pricing strategy has been really, really interesting. I think they've done a TREMENDOUS job of moving the psychological price barrier higher by making the 980 TI the best bargain in their lineup. Had the 980 been more appropriately priced since the 980 TI's arrival ($400 instead of $500+), I'd wager that less people would have bit the bullet and spent the extra $200-250 for the 980 TI. For Nvidia's part, it looks like it's paying off on their bottom dollar. Prepare for GP104 to be $599-649.

 

[Hugo Drax]

R9 Nanos are going for 480 (460 after rebate)

No coil whine issues here.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Supply and demand. I would imagine if they had a lot of harvested chips laying around they'd cut prices. Keep in mind that they've cut the price, pretty dramatically, of the top binned chip.

Or yields are getting better and it will be cheaper to sell the nano without that water cooling stuff. Less physical hardware.

I really like the R9 nano, so small and power efficient. fits nicely in small cases.

 

[3DVagabond]

Or yields are getting better and it will be cheaper to sell the nano without that water cooling stuff. Less physical hardware.

I really like the R9 nano, so small and power efficient. fits nicely in small cases.

I might not have been clear. I'm saying better supply of their top binned chips (Nano would be their lowest leakage chips) would be due to better yields.

If I was going Fiji crossfire without a custom loop I'd go Nano because of the lower power usage. Dissipating ~350W instead of ~500W for Fury (and Nano dumps ~50% out of the case) or having to mount 2x AIO's with Fury X. Just move the power slider and get 1KHz stable on the clocks if you need the extra performance. Most games though will run just fine completely stock settings even at 4K with 2x Nanos.

 

[Stuka87]

A 390x is faster than a stock 980 at 1440p and 4k, but stock 980's are uncommon and even then 980's overclock and easily to surpass the 390x at 1440p and at 4k. It's still not worth the $120 price difference though.

Proof? The VAST majority of computer owners never overclock anything. They never over clock the CPU or GPU. Enthusiast OC sure, but we are a minority.

Some anecdotal evidence, or all the PC gamers I work with, I am the only one that has ever over clocked anything.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Does discussing what the "VAST majority" does matter on the AT message board? His point stands - the 390X is generally a better value than the 980, even if you overclock them both.

 

[kawi6rr]

Proof? The VAST majority of computer owners never overclock anything. They never over clock the CPU or GPU. Enthusiast OC sure, but we are a minority.

Some anecdotal evidence, or all the PC gamers I work with, I am the only one that has ever over clocked anything.

Agree 100%. I used to overclock but didn't really feel the gains were worth the effort, many of my overclocking buddies stopped years ago as well. All the people I game with online don't overclock either it's definitely a niche group of people "enthusiasts".

the Nano is tempting but I think I'll wait a bit to see what's in the near future.

 

[ultron]

NVIDIA has a lot of headroom to cut 980's prices due to chip's relatively small die size. A 400 mm^2 chip+8 GDDR5 pieces modules+and the other components on the card shouldn't cost a lot. If AMD can price a card with 350 mm^2 GPU(Slightly better yields than gtx 980)+8 modules VRAM configuration(R9 380X) as 225 USD, why not NVIDIA can't drop GTX 980's prices? I guess the only reason of why did they overprice their product is marketing strategy unless they had terrible yields at production.

 

[Headfoot]

Does discussing what the "VAST majority" does matter on the AT message board? His point stands - the 390X is generally a better value than the 980, even if you overclock them both.

Do you guys have links showing the 980 actually performing better OC vs OC, when the 980 lost at stock vs stock? I know people kept claiming this over and over for 970 vs 390 only to find that the 390 maintained the exact same difference from the 970 when both were OC'd.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Do you guys have links showing the 980 actually performing better OC vs OC, when the 980 lost at stock vs stock? I know people kept claiming this over and over for 970 vs 390 only to find that the 390 maintained the exact same difference from the 970 when both were OC'd.

We could probably cherry-pick numbers all day, but the consensus from most reviews is that the 390X usually beats the 980 when gaming 4K while the 980 usually beats the 390X when gaming 1080p. They trade blows at 1440p. A good OC on a 980 usually results in more victories for the 980. All that said, the cheapest 980 on Newegg right now is $480 while the cheapest 390X is $360. $120 difference for two very competitive cards.

https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalFoundry/search?query=390x

 

[Headfoot]

. A good OC on a 980 usually results in more victories for the 980.

Yes people keep saying this, but does anyone actually have proof, like a graph showing stock vs stock and OC vs OC (preferably using average OC's from HWBot or similar)? Preferably 1080/1440/4k spread.

I havent watched that video yet but ill take a look

 

[therealnickdanger]

Yes people keep saying this, but does anyone actually have proof, like a graph showing stock vs stock and OC vs OC (preferably using average OC's from HWBot or similar)? Preferably 1080/1440/4k spread.

I havent watched that video yet but ill take a look

It's a link to multiple videos of many games using 390X, 980, 970, OC, stock, etc.

 

[Silverforce11]

They are close in performance, even OC v OC, the only thing that's not close?

1. Power usage. OC 390/X uses a lot more.
2. Price. 980 is usually a lot more expensive.
3. CF vs SLI, 390X will pwn 980 SLI, with better scaling, smoother frame times and more vram.

#3 is less of a factor, because I would rather CF Fury Nano instead.

 

[Headfoot]

It's a link to multiple videos of many games using 390X, 980, 970, OC, stock, etc.

Fair enough, I'll keep looking for something a little more condensed. I don't want to have to go through and write down results from a bunch of videos, but I do like Digital Foundry's testing generally speaking

 

[tential]

I wholly agree with your statement on who has the best deals on the market, but saying the 390x is faster than the 980 is incorrect, IMO. A 390x is faster than a stock 980 at 1440p and 4k, but stock 980's are uncommon and even then 980's overclock and easily to surpass the 390x at 1440p and at 4k. It's still not worth the $120 price difference though.

Nvidia's pricing strategy has been really, really interesting. I think they've done a TREMENDOUS job of moving the psychological price barrier higher by making the 980 TI the best bargain in their lineup. Had the 980 been more appropriately priced since the 980 TI's arrival ($400 instead of $500+), I'd wager that less people would have bit the bullet and spent the extra $200-250 for the 980 TI. For Nvidia's part, it looks like it's paying off on their bottom dollar. Prepare for GP104 to be $599-649.

Good addition I agree. The 980 may be faster than a 390x once oced but like you said, it's not worth the price no matter what. And imo the vram and crossfire benefits as well as the lower price overall to get there is worth it. You're $200tops over a gtx 980 to get cf 390x.

But I mean ya, amd needed something better than fury x.

 

[tphss]

Congrats. What about the coil whine, does it have any?

I should have it in a week, I'll update after I finish my new build and have it going. Probably in about 10 days.
If I'm happy with it, I'm going to replace my current build GTX 970 FTW+ with another R9 Nano and fit everything to a smaller case.

 

[tential]

I'd be more excited about the Nano if there were better cases for it easily available. If there were, I'd move a build to it. Because HBM will allow for far smaller cards now, and my whole case is just empty space.

 

[Kenmitch]

I'd be more excited about the Nano if there were better cases for it easily available. If there were, I'd move a build to it. Because HBM will allow for far smaller cards now, and my whole case is just empty space.

Wonder why AMD didn't just partner with some company to have a custom case designed for the Nano. Wouldn't have taken much effort to come up with something I'd think.