Fury Nano, biggest bang in smallest package.. FPS/inch baby!

[Eymar]

But when you say "[Fury X] will sell out no matter the cost of cards below it" assuming you're right and Nano's are full-functional Fiji dies, AMD would be further shooting themselves in the foot selling possible Fury X chips as cheaper Fury Nano chips.

Haha I agree. I wasn't saying Fury X will sell out no matter what, I was assuming that what was AMD's logic with Fury X (low volume super high end part), "so AMD is assuming that they'll sell out no matter the cost of cards below it." Point being the Nano priced at ~$500 would of looked like a value if Fury X was priced at say $750 or in AMD's pipe dreams $850 and wouldn't eat sales of Fury X. That is what I think AMD's plan A/best case scenario which to me seems to follow what Nvidia does with Titan and TI models. Obviously, Plan A is not happening because of the 980ti being the clear performance winner at $650 price point (I would love to know just out of curiosity if Nvidia had a higher price point in mind). Plan B has to hurt for AMD.

 

[tential]

This is the main VCG section right so what's wrong with having the GTX 980 on here?
Now that it is mentioned, it would be nice to see the GTX 980 in the same TDP.

We've seen the Fury X with a power limit to look like a Nano. Would be nice to see a GTX 980 (Nano) benchmark too to compare.

This is the general section after all...

 

[tviceman]

This is the main VCG section right so what's wrong with having the GTX 980 on here?
Now that it is mentioned, it would be nice to see the GTX 980 in the same TDP.

We've seen the Fury X with a power limit to look like a Nano. Would be nice to see a GTX 980 (Nano) benchmark too to compare.

This is the general section after all...

I doubt Nvidia will sell a super-high efficient desktop GM204 sku. Why would they when they're charging an extra few hundred bucks selling those particularly binned chips to their mobile (laptop) customers? It would be smart of Nvidia, however, to build a reference mini-ITX GTX 980 card and put that up against Fury Nano. Given that GTX 980 is already 37-50% more efficient than Fury X at 1440p and 1080p (the likely target resolution for Fury Nano), Nvidia doesn't really have a pressing need to make it more efficient.

 

[tential]

I doubt Nvidia will sell a super-high efficient desktop GM204 sku. Why would they when they're charging an extra few hundred bucks selling those particularly binned chips to their mobile (laptop) customers? It would be smart of Nvidia, however, to build a reference mini-ITX GTX 980 card and put that up against Fury Nano. Given that GTX 980 is already 37-50% more efficient than Fury X at 1440p and 1080p (the likely target resolution for Fury Nano), Nvidia doesn't really have a pressing need to make it more efficient.

All I said was it would be interesting to see them tested at the same TDP levels against each other....

 

[tviceman]

All I said was it would be interesting to see them tested at the same TDP levels against each other....

Oh gotcha. Well they're listed TDP's are very close to one another - GTX 980 is listed at 165 watts and Fury Nano is listed at 175 watts. How each company comes up with their respective TDP's is possibly another story.

 

[tential]

Oh gotcha. Well they're listed TDP's are very close to one another - GTX 980 is listed at 165 watts and Fury Nano is listed at 175 watts. How each company comes up with their respective TDP's is possibly another story.

Yup so if the Nano and the GTX 980 perform at similar perf at similar TDP... then the Nano is priced anything above $450 and the GTX 980 will kill it. Ya, the Nano is nice, but the market of people needing a card to be the nano size is not big.

But again, would like to actually see a test of setting these two cards equal (GTX 980 vs Fury X both at Nano TDP). That will basically let us know what price the Fury Nano can really old its weight at.