Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[AtenRa]

R9 fury x nano.
90% of fury x performance 175w tdp.
For when you need the fastest card in the smallest form factor.
$650


Change the wording around if you want.

I would have presented both the r9 nano and gtx 980ti on gsync/freesync displays at release for people to test on.
No benches just play.


The fundamental difference?

No mention of cheap products.
No mention of gtx products in my slides
People can play on both rigs and realize that a 980ti and nano are the same performance but nano is smaller, less power consumption, quieter(ya I'd have oced the 980ti or gotten a high oc model). This portion is crucial because it changes the game from raw fps, to user experience and shows user experience is same. Freesync monitor is cheaper as well.

If you can't see how what I've listed here is far more favorable to amd than what amd actually did, then maybe yall really don't want what is best for amd.

How you present a product, every single word matters....

You didnt understand it yet, let me try to make it simpler.

NVIDIA ONLY has the GTX970mini.

Now AMD Fury Nano is 30% FASTER

Now AMD product is a topdog.

Now AMD commands a PREMIUM over NVIDIA

Now NVIDIA GTX970Mini is a low budget product.

Now AMD has something that NVIDIA doesnt.

I believe this is enough to make you understand

 

[ShintaiDK]

It seems to be "anything where a GTX 980/980 Ti doesn't fit."

If NVidia answers the call and we get a mini GTX 980/980 Ti, it will probably change to "<175W" haha.

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.

 

[railven]

Amd has done something like that before with Trinity.

I think that impressed a few people, but they had the handicap of going 1:1 with Intel in an IGP race that the only people who cared weren't present (ie low budget gamers).

With Fury Nano you've got Nviida literally by the balls if done right. Using Tential's scenario, with a nice small case and proper cooling you got a *cheaper* system in a smaller form performing within a few FPS of an expensive monster.

If ANYONE here getting one? Can someone explain the rationale behind 4K gaming & huge monitor (re: TV) but my PC has to be really small??

I'm open to it I just don't understand it (yet).

So people are buying 4K TV's and want to game in their living room, but don't want a huge, embarrassingly decked out and lit-up gaming chassis sitting in their living room when people visit?

Yes. Maybe I'm getting older, but I found even a small ITX case ugly in the living room. I even got a cabinet system to which hide the glowing lights of idle consoles.

Hell, if Steam Stream (or whatever they call it) works adequately enough I'm never going to need a PC in the living room again.

 

[monstercameron]

If ANYONE here getting one? Can someone explain the rationale behind 4K gaming & huge monitor (re: TV) but my PC has to be really small??

I'm open to it I just don't understand it (yet).

So people are buying 4K TV's and want to game in their living room, but don't want a huge, embarrassingly decked out and lit-up gaming chassis sitting in their living room when people visit?

It is aesthetically displeasing to have a large black box just taking up space. So is a TV but most will make an exception.

 

[monstercameron]

I think that impressed a few people, but they had the handicap of going 1:1 with Intel in an IGP race that the only people who cared weren't present (ie low budget gamers).

With Fury Nano you've got Nviida literally by the balls if done right. Using Tential's scenario, with a nice small case and proper cooling you got a *cheaper* system in a smaller form performing within a few FPS of an expensive monster.



Yes. Maybe I'm getting older, but I found even a small ITX case ugly in the living room. I even got a cabinet system to which hide the glowing lights of idle consoles.

Hell, if Steam Stream (or whatever they call it) works adequately enough I'm never going to need a PC in the living room again.

Execution can always be better and hindsight is 20-20. They had a message and they conveyed it, adequately IMHO.

 

[AtenRa]

I would like to know what the SFF definition is as well. Because its not just MiniITX it seems. I consider my MiniITX build to be a SFF, and it contains a GTX980. The chassis vendor also defines it as SFF.

Small Form Factor, to differentiate from the rest of the GPUs.

Or we could call it half sized GPUs.

 

[monstercameron]

Small Form Factor, to differentiate from the rest of the GPUs.

Or we could call it half sized GPUs.

Half size isn't very accurate, there is already half height and single slot. Maybe calling it itx sized is more accurate?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Small Form Factor, to differentiate from the rest of the GPUs.

Or we could call it half sized GPUs.

Half size isn't very accurate, there is already half height and single slot. Maybe calling it itx sized is more accurate?

Calling it SFF or ITX is both misleading since both can support up to even the Fury Longsword if wished. At best it can be called a mini GPU card. The amount of SFF cases that can fit a mini card but not a regular card is extremely small. It very quickly become low profile single slot cards outside the full(or close to) length cards. Assuming it can fit a dGPU at all.

And this again raises the question, who is the buyer.

Just for fun I am trying to find the cases in the AMD slide. My own SG08B that can take 12.2" cards is 14.8L volume.
The first case looks to be a Lian Li PC-Q33 that is 18L. (8.66")
The middle case seems to be a Cooltek Coolcube that is 10.1L. (7.09")
The last case is a Cooler Master Elite 110 with a volume of 15.1L. (8.27")

 

[dark zero]

You didnt understand it yet, let me try to make it simpler.

NVIDIA ONLY has the GTX970mini.

Now AMD Fury Nano is 30% FASTER

Now AMD product is a topdog.

Now AMD commands a PREMIUM over NVIDIA

Now NVIDIA GTX970Mini is a low budget product.

Now AMD has something that NVIDIA doesnt.

I believe this is enough to make you understand

FAIL!
Nvidia has the GTX 990M who are 1.5x superior than the AMD crap!

Nvidia will be 50% faster again!

Nvidia will go premium with.less than 500 dollars!

Nvidia product is a topdog.

Nvidia has the CHEAP PREMIUM again!

Nvidia GDDR5 IS FAR SUPERIOR THAN AMD HBM!

Nvidia has something that AMD won't have in their pathetic lives.

Best of it? IT WILL COME SOLDERED ON A BOARD! with warranty included!

 

[chimaxi83]

FAIL!
Nvidia has the GTX 990M who are 1.5x superior than the AMD crap!

Nvidia will be 50% faster again!

Nvidia will go premium with.less than 500 dollars!

Nvidia product is a topdog.

Nvidia has the CHEAP PREMIUM again!

Nvidia GDDR5 IS FAR SUPERIOR THAN AMD HBM!

Nvidia has something that AMD won't have in their pathetic lives.

Best of it? IT WILL COME SOLDERED ON A BOARD! with warranty included!

I guess it was time for new foam at the mouth video card company supporter. It's kind of creepy.

 

[tential]

I guess it was time for new foam at the mouth video card company supporter. It's kind of creepy.

http://apusilicon.com/rant-amd-financial-instabiity/
http://apusilicon.com/apu-wars-amd-a10-7700k-vs-intel-core-i3-4330/

Look at the authors of these two articles...
If the names aren't familiar to you, well lucky you.

 

[tential]

You didnt understand it yet, let me try to make it simpler.

NVIDIA ONLY has the GTX970mini.

Now AMD Fury Nano is 30% FASTER

Now AMD product is a topdog.

Now AMD commands a PREMIUM over NVIDIA

Now NVIDIA GTX970Mini is a low budget product.

Now AMD has something that NVIDIA doesnt.

I believe this is enough to make you understand

Two simple questions for you?
------
R9 Fury Nano is 30% faster than a card you were never going to buy, don't care about, isn't a premium product, and isn't as power efficient.
-----
Can you see how that is a poor marketing statement?

----
Is there any difference between these 2 statements in terms of marketing the R9 Nano?

1st:
R9 Nano is 30% faster than the GTX 970 Mini.

2nd:
R9 Nano is 90% the speed of Fury X.
---------------------

Thanks.

 

[SolMiester]

Lol, the most inept company is the one that incured dozen billions losses to consumers when they decided to cash one billion or two selling chips that they knew were faulty...

So much for the inability to face it, apply your remark to yourself...

What?....

 

[SolMiester]

Fury Nano + 30% FASTER than GTX 970 Mini. That is what the PDF is advertising.

That also means Nano is 10-15% FASTER than GTX980

That also means Nano has 80-90% performance at 4K of GTX 980Ti AT LOWER POWER AND smaller size.

They also had the following slide,
That means you can have a 30% FASTER system than the GTX970 at the same SFF case.

OR

You can have 80-90% of the GTX980Ti at 4K at a very slim SFF case, something you cannot do with the GTX980 Ti.

AMD also said the Fury X was faster than 980Ti and an OC dream!..LOL...Blowing your own trumpet counts for nowt!

 

[tential]

AMD also said the Fury X was faster than 980Ti and an OC dream!..LOL...Blowing your own trumpet counts for nowt!

Saying it's faster is the correct move as a company. It's a factual claim under the correct circumstances (4k) and why wouldn't you want to talk 4K? You want to talk about crossfire 4K too probably as that's where your bread and butter strength is compared to Nvidia.

OCing? What's that? Most of the market doesn't even OC anyway... You keep that at MOST brief side mention.

You want to talk 4K, Noise, Noise it Crossfire vs Noise in 980Ti, and Freesync. That's where you're winning, that's what you focus on. And it's a good combination of selling points for a product.

That Overclocker's dream statement really really hurt the Fury X launch there. Lots of people fixated on that one comment alone.
Even worse, is the people that still want a Fury X, can't get one.

That's how you destroy a product launch.

 

[SolMiester]

The point was AtenRa stating 30% greater performance from the AMD slides when the last slide presentation was simply misleading....and frankly embarrassing for such a mature company.

 

[RussianSensation]

I guess it was time for new foam at the mouth video card company supporter. It's kind of creepy.

The Force, it's real!
http://www.poultryhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Broiler-chicks1.jpg

You have to be a part of the Force to understand it. :biggrin:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwEgjKlIcAAOOa4.jpg

http://assets.overclock.net.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b3/b3867bf0_vbattach235410.jpeg

Based on how convincing Huang sounded when hyping up Volta (ahem Pascal), you'd think NV invented HBM!

This amazing NV technology where you stack the DRAMs on top of one another and then you pierce them by creating a physical hole in the DRAM with Through Silicon Vias to get up to 1TB/sec memory bandwidth. Never been done before. Incredible.

AMD beat NV to HBM and to flagship size 596mm2 GPU in a 6-inch (15 cm) form factor by a full generation. Sure, it's expensive, sure it's not a mainstream product, sure it's not going to gain market share. None of these are the point of the Nano. It's overpriced like the Titan because it's intended for an extreme niche of a sub-niche group of gamers. Anyone looking for price/performance value isn't buying a Nano. I think that point can't be made more clearer.

The point was AtenRa stating 30% greater performance from the AMD slides when the last slide presentation was simply misleading....and frankly embarrassing for such a mature company.

Get real. NV/AMD have constantly misrepresented data on marketing slides. NV claimed that Maxwell has 2X perf/watt over Kepler. 980Ti is barely getting to 50% vs. 780Ti.

970 Fiasco will go down in history as the worst marketing representation of all time. And if we start digging about the stuff NV lied/misrepresented about over the years, ya, we don't want to go there.

I also remember how NV told us gamers that the Titan Z's normal operating GPU Boost frequencies would be between 706-800mhz vs. the 1000mhz advertised clocks. Oh wait, that never happened.

That's what marketing is => Both companies create slides to put their product in the best light possible and it's the reviewer's jobs and ours to validate them.

While the Nano itself isn't going to be a mainstream seller and change much for AMD, it's a great proof of concept about what HBM will bring for the entire GPU industry in the years to come. We should be looking at the Nano as a start of a new generation of GPUs -- much more powerful GPUs in a small form factor -- despite the fact that the Nano itself is a price/performance failure. We can argue that the Tesla Model S is a failure since it's out of reach of most consumers but eventually the technology in that product will trickle down to lower price segments and improve over time.

While AMD's sales and profits won't show much for it, HD4800 introducing GDDR5, R9 295X2 and Fury X introducing AIO CLC, HBM/Nano are revolutionary inflection points in the history of GPUs. AMD continues to be on the cutting edge of technology but the fact that they have to compete with both Intel+NV with less resources than either isn't surprising that they can't win. It's absolutely incredible that a company like AMD is making GPUs that can still compete with NV considering NV is primarily a GPU/video focused firm while AMD has to deal with spending a lot of its R&D and engineering resources on APUs/CPUs.

 

[Azix]

AMD also said the Fury X was faster than 980Ti and an OC dream!..LOL...Blowing your own trumpet counts for nowt!

the Fury X is the most powerful GPU out today. That's not in question. It's just one thing to pack more teraflops but another to win in benchmarks.

 

[RussianSensation]

the Fury X is the most powerful GPU out today. That's not in question. It's just one thing to pack more teraflops but another to win in benchmarks.

For Gaming the Titan X OC is still the most powerful GPU though but AMD is likely to reclaim the title with Fury X2. Also, in raw FPS, R9 295X2 beats the Fury X.

Most of them can't figure out a way where to put 2x120mm radiators inside their mid-range case. So it was already a foregone conclusion that even if Fury X beat 980Ti in every metric, it would be crapped upon for this reason alone. And after that, it would be AMD's drivers, and lack of HDMI 2.0 too.

What's most incredible is that when the Titan X came out, none of them would even believe that AMD's 2nd tier Fury would provide 87-89% of the Titan X's performance at 4K at $550 level, and that AMD CF would actually beat 980TI SLI in 4K, as well as Tri-Fire vs. Tri-Sli and Quad-Fire vs. Quad-SLI because XDMA CF > SLI.

TechSpot already proved that the main reason 980TI SLI won this generation was because of its overclocking headroom. Credit to NV as GM200 is stellar for raw performance+OC, but at the same time AMD's Fury X CF did beat reference 980TI SLI, which is far from the failure people paint the Fury X to be considering how many people on this very forum purchased hot+loud reference 980TI cards without even waiting to see the results for Fury X! Yes, the Fury X isn't as good as the 980Ti but the main issue is Fury X's price. Had it been priced at $549, it would have found a lot more buyers. Same for the Fury as AMD was too aggressive imho and a much more strategic price would have been $479-499 which would have put it well clear of the 980TI but at the same time barely more expensive than the 980 at which point the Fury is a no brainer. Right now at $550 it's a tad too expensive vs. even the 390X and too close to the 980Ti.

I guess noise, temperatures don't matter though when it comes to NV reference cards, much like during HD7970/R9 290X generation, after-market AIB AMD cards didn't matter, ONLY reference cards. Similar to how today the Sapphire Fury Tri-X is the quietest flagship level card this generation but that doesn't matter at all when recommending GTX980 over it. :sneaky:

In other words if the Nano was priced at $99-649, there would always be reasons why it's just like HDMI 2.0, lack of PhysX or only 4GB of memory. :awe:

 

[Abwx]

What?....

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

 

[dark zero]

I guess it was time for new foam at the mouth video card company supporter. It's kind of creepy.

Nope, I only replied the trolling of that guy... with another one.

Also the nVIDIA 990M is real and will come with worse TDP than AMD Fury Nano

 

[casiofx]

I guess noise, temperatures don't matter though when it comes to NV reference cards, much like during HD7970/R9 290X generation, after-market AIB AMD cards didn't matter, ONLY reference cards. Similar to how today the Sapphire Fury Tri-X is the quietest flagship level card this generation but that doesn't matter at all when recommending GTX980 over it. :sneaky:

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.
The only advantage GTX 980 have over Fury is free bundled game and CUDA heh.

If the Fury Nano can sustain at least 900Mhz in heavy GPU loads, it should roughly the same speed as 1000Mhz Fury. With binned chips and lowered voltage, such thing is possible.

 

[tential]

For Gaming the Titan X OC is still the most powerful GPU though but AMD is likely to reclaim the title with Fury X2. Also, in raw FPS, R9 295X2 beats the Fury X.

Most of them can't figure out a way where to put 2x120mm radiators inside their mid-range case. So it was already a foregone conclusion that even if Fury X beat 980Ti in every metric, it would be crapped upon for this reason alone. And after that, it would be AMD's drivers, and lack of HDMI 2.0 too.

What's most incredible is that when the Titan X came out, none of them would even believe that AMD's 2nd tier Fury would provide 87-89% of the Titan X's performance at 4K at $550 level, and that AMD CF would actually beat 980TI SLI in 4K, as well as Tri-Fire vs. Tri-Sli and Quad-Fire vs. Quad-SLI because XDMA CF > SLI.

TechSpot already proved that the main reason 980TI SLI won this generation was because of its overclocking headroom. Credit to NV as GM200 is stellar for raw performance+OC, but at the same time AMD's Fury X CF did beat reference 980TI SLI, which is far from the failure people paint the Fury X to be considering how many people on this very forum purchased hot+loud reference 980TI cards without even waiting to see the results for Fury X! Yes, the Fury X isn't as good as the 980Ti but the main issue is Fury X's price. Had it been priced at $549, it would have found a lot more buyers. Same for the Fury as AMD was too aggressive imho and a much more strategic price would have been $479-499 which would have put it well clear of the 980TI but at the same time barely more expensive than the 980 at which point the Fury is a no brainer. Right now at $550 it's a tad too expensive vs. even the 390X and too close to the 980Ti.

I guess noise, temperatures don't matter though when it comes to NV reference cards, much like during HD7970/R9 290X generation, after-market AIB AMD cards didn't matter, ONLY reference cards. Similar to how today the Sapphire Fury Tri-X is the quietest flagship level card this generation but that doesn't matter at all when recommending GTX980 over it. :sneaky:

In other words if the Nano was priced at $99-649, there would always be reasons why it's just like HDMI 2.0, lack of PhysX or only 4GB of memory. :awe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTMgESLhiZo

Can you embed youtubes? I assume not.
This is the review AMD needs with a Fury X. By MAJOR players. At 4K.

They need THESE types of reviews if they want to win. People are too focused on numbers, that's not as relevant anymore. What is relevant is this... and AMD should be pushing a metric where it wins at because once we have this, then it's about things like noise....
And for AMD, it's a massacre when they can move the situation to ONLY that effectively. You just have to shape how you present the product and that's a good move by AMD. Sadly, that video only has 2000 views or so, rather than getting major players to review like this more often.

Now the game is "Who can provide the minimum refresh rate of your monitor to play your favorite games at the highest quality levels possible" and HARDOCP especially with their "highest playable settings" would have a blast with the "highest playable 4K Freesync" settings.

AMD could make this work, they choose not to.

 

[RussianSensation]

If ANYONE here getting one? Can someone explain the rationale behind 4K gaming & huge monitor (re: TV) but my PC has to be really small??

I'm open to it I just don't understand it (yet).

So people are buying 4K TV's and want to game in their living room, but don't want a huge, embarrassingly decked out and lit-up gaming chassis sitting in their living room when people visit?

Ya, that's pretty much it.

Imagine some of these homes/apartments with a TV. You can manage to put a small form factor case and hide it/blend it with the furniture but there is no easy way to put a mid-tower or a large case and hide it as well without ingenuity.

You'd have to do something like this:

But if you don't have those types of skills, maybe this:

It of course depends on the person but for me personally having a mid-tower PC in the living room looks ridiculous and out of place, which is why I have a PC room separate from the living room.

Do you want to ruin your living room with a mid-tower PC? Some people don't care, others do, especially if you have a wife or a dog/cat too.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is exactly why SFF high-end PCs have such ridiculous premiums. Falcon Northwest Tiki 2015 model is $5000 US+.

Is it worth it? To me it's not but it's selling so there is a market for it.

There are ballers/high-end customers who don't care about the $650 price of Nano or $1000 price of Titan X. They just want a clean living room.

Again, some people are OK with having a mid/large tower in their gaming area and that's perfectly fine too.

But you don't even need to be a baller/high net worth individual to desire a clean gaming/living room where an exposed mid-tower PC would look unattractive: