Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[AtenRa]

That's why they sold a million cards in no time. PPL thought they were getting a free lunch until it turns out, doh you got segmented memory. Snap. Anyways at face value, 85% of the performance for $220 bucks less. Ya, that is a not tough sell er that is until you figure in the memory snafu.

Then AMD will sell a million R9 390/X by the same logic

You get 80% of the performance + 4GB more VRAM at $250-300 less. :biggrin:

 

[thesmokingman]

Then AMD will sell a million R9 390/X by the same logic

You get 80% of the performance + 4GB more VRAM at $250-300 less. :biggrin:

The problem is that AMD made it. It's red, so it immediately sucks. You cannot argue against that logic. :sneaky:

 

[AtenRa]

The problem is that AMD made it. It's red, so it immediately sucks. You cannot argue against that logic. :sneaky:

nope i cant, it is also the reason why they cant have a premium price.

 

[tential]

nope i cant, it is also the reason why they cant have a premium price.

So you're saying amd can't have a premium price because of its brand.
But are saying amd should get a premium price because nvidia did.

Make up your mind and pick a side

 

[monstercameron]

You're again missing my point I don't know how else to explain this to you. Can you find a marketing slide from nvidia from the gtx 980 release that says
Gtx 980 - 15% faster than gtx 970.
Curious because I doubt nvidia was dumb enough to market the gtx 980 in that way but I could be wrong.

I'm not debating the price... I've said numerous times the price is justified...

I'm debating how the presented the product which is not how you present a premium product. Period.

How would you present such a product? For me it is very clear cut...if you need a very powerful sff card get this or the slower nvidia alternative.

 

[monstercameron]

The problem is that AMD made it. It's red, so it immediately sucks. You cannot argue against that logic. :sneaky:

Yeah it is impossible.

 

[AtenRa]

You're again missing my point I don't know how else to explain this to you. Can you find a marketing slide from nvidia from the gtx 980 release that says
Gtx 980 - 15% faster than gtx 970.
Curious because I doubt nvidia was dumb enough to market the gtx 980 in that way but I could be wrong.

I'm not debating the price... I've said numerous times the price is justified...

I'm debating how the presented the product which is not how you present a premium product. Period.

AMD is pushing the Fury Nano for the SFF 4K premium market. That fastest SFF card until today was the GTX970Mini. Now AMD Fury Nano is the topdog in that category.

Fury Nano is not marketed against GTX980 or GTX980Ti. AMD Fury was released a few weeks ago to compete against GTX 980 and Fury X against GTX980Ti.

So you see this is the reason im not following your reasoning and im sticking to Fury Nano against GTX970 mini. Because that is what AMD wants to compete against. Nano is not competing against GTX980, GTX980Ti or Fury/X in the eyes of AMD. Simple as that.

 

[the unknown]

Then AMD will sell a million R9 390/X by the same logic

You get 80% of the performance + 4GB more VRAM at $250-300 less. :biggrin:

They might have if they released them earlier. TW3 and GTAV came out and I wasn't willing to wait for them to come out.

 

[AtenRa]

So you're saying amd can't have a premium price because of its brand.
But are saying amd should get a premium price because nvidia did.

Make up your mind and pick a side

sorry i had to type /sarcasm

 

[tential]

AMD is pushing the Fury Nano for the SFF 4K premium market. That fastest SFF card until today was the GTX970Mini. Now AMD Fury Nano is the topdog in that category.

Fury Nano is not marketed against GTX980 or GTX980Ti. AMD Fury was released a few weeks ago to compete against GTX 980 and Fury X against GTX980Ti.

So you see this is the reason im not following your reasoning and im sticking to Fury Nano against GTX970 mini. Because that is what AMD wants to compete against. Nano is not competing against GTX980, GTX980Ti or Fury/X in the eyes of AMD. Simple as that.

Let me ask you this then since you like to draw comparisons to nvidia.

Can you find an nvidia marketing slide at the time of the gtx 980 release saying:
Gtx 980 15% faster than a gtx 970..

Or any similar type of marketing from nvidia comparing the gtx 980 to a product that is 1/2 it's price(or any non premium product for that matter) From the gtx 980 released.

That's the fundamental difference between nvidia product presentation vs amd product presentation (unless you prove me wrong which well amd is just screwed.)

 

[railven]

The context is 15% higher performance at X amount higher price vs 30% higher performance at Y amount higher price.

Im not saying people will rash by the millions to buy the Fury Nano, im communicating why the 100% higher price over GTX970 is reasonably from the NVIDIA point of view. :biggrin:

I'll never understand the reasoning of AMD fans. At least when the HD 7970 came out, it demanded it's premium. Sure, it didn't stop historic posters from losing their minds and spilling spaghetti all over it only once it got price cut to flip-flop so hard they would have got elected into office.


A card that is $650 is being compared to a card that is less than half the price. This is just going to get ugly when the results are in and people see that the card, if using AMD slide, is at best 30% faster in specific scenarios.

But you keep arguing "the GTX 980 was X% faster and cost Y% more" unfortunately, when the GTX 980 was on the shelves, there weren't 3 other very viable cards FASTER at the same/lower price.

Because then it turns into "well it's 0-15% more and Y% slower".

 

[DustinBrowder]

I don't understand the performance/watt thing in a desktop PC. I mean if I'm going to drop the cash on a sports car for racing, why would gas mileage be at the top of my priority list and not performance? The only time I see wattage being a big deal is when it gets out of hand like it does when over-volting a Fury for little gain.

Because if Nvidia did it you are the rest of the Nvidia worshipers would not let it go and even if they released a $1000 980ti(titan x) you'd still claim its the next best thing since sliced bread just because it has decent performance per watt, while being $500 overpriced, but hey it has 20W less power consumption than the 290x which costs only $450(at the time)!!!!!!!!!!

I mean surf this forum for 5 minutes and every second post is how Nvidia wins because their cards consume 10W or 20W less power and that is why at $100 or $150 or even $300 more they are better, because they have 20W power advantage!

So now AMD wins and win handily, in fact it leaves Nvidia in the dust with a high level, top of the line, premium quality build, very small, only 175W for flagship product in the Nano.

So finally the Nvidia shills and worshipers can drop the stupid act and stop claiming Nvidia has better performance per watt, because its just not true! AMD rules in this field and Nano leaves ALL Nvidia cards in the dust!

175W flagship product with premium quality build, very small size, HBM, cool, quite 4k gaming ready card for only $650, $350 less than the Titan X.

 

[Phynaz]

AMD is pushing the Fury Nano for the SFF 4K premium market. That fastest SFF card until today was the GTX970Mini. Now AMD Fury Nano is the topdog in that category.

Fury Nano is not marketed against GTX980 or GTX980Ti. AMD Fury was released a few weeks ago to compete against GTX 980 and Fury X against GTX980Ti.

So you see this is the reason im not following your reasoning and im sticking to Fury Nano against GTX970 mini. Because that is what AMD wants to compete against. Nano is not competing against GTX980, GTX980Ti or Fury/X in the eyes of AMD. Simple as that.

Fury Nano is top dog? Show me benchmarks and where I can buy one please.

 

[tential]

How would you present such a product? For me it is very clear cut...if you need a very powerful sff card get this or the slower nvidia alternative.

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....

 

[AtenRa]

But you keep arguing "the GTX 980 was X% faster and cost Y% more" unfortunately, when the GTX 980 was on the shelves, there weren't 3 other very viable cards FASTER at the same/lower price.

And today there is no faster SFF card than Fury Nano at 4K. So the competition only has the GTX 970 Mini. Bad for them, bad for us because this way Fury Nano commands a Premium price.

 

[railven]

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....

Hell, going on this idea, I'd add that after people play a bit and form an opinion you lift the veil to reveal two rigs.

One the size of a GPU box the other size of a small person.

"Impressed?"

Then stick a ref GTX 980 Ti in there and let the fan go hog wild and if the "library quiet" claim is any where close to true, you just impressed a crowd of people.

But knowing AMD, they'll get the faster custom cooled GTX 980 Ti and stick the Nano in a case with no fans to push the "see it's quiet" angle only for it to throttle or BSOD mid demo.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And today there is no faster SFF card than Fury Nano at 4K. So the competition only has the GTX 970 Mini. Bad for them, bad for us because this way Fury Nano commands a Premium price.

Nano doesnt exist yet for consumers.

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.

 

[AtenRa]

Fury Nano is top dog? Show me benchmarks and where I can buy one please.

You have to wait until the 10th of September.

Until then you can buy a Fury or Fury X. If you want the fastest SFF card at 4K, then you have to wait a few more days.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So finally the Nvidia shills and worshipers can drop the stupid act and stop claiming Nvidia has better performance per watt, because its just not true! AMD rules in this field and Nano leaves ALL Nvidia cards in the dust!

Right. So why is the GTX 980 Ti more efficient than the Fury X? GTX 980 more efficient than the R9 Fury?

 

[railven]

R9 Nano doesnt exist yet for consumers.

I would like to know what the SFF definition is as well. Because its not just MiniITX it seems.

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.

 

[monstercameron]

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 make some good points. My take is that amd focused on the relevant points of such a niche product, Size, power, noise and comparable products from the competition.

That can't pitch such a card to every possible customers preferences, they just have to be generic, clear, direct and other similar descriptors.

 

[bystander36]

Can we stop with the "If Nvidia did this, then everyone would be excited" crap? We all know a few fanboys will always stick up for their brand, but for most of us, we'll look at it for what it is.

As far as I'm concerned, the Nano is a specialty product, meant for small form factors, and nothing more. If you are not looking for that, you will not like the card unless you are a fanboy. It has nothing to do with it being AMD or Nvidia.

As far as price premiums go, only niche, or halo products demand a premium. The Nano is a niche product. It might manage its premium, but only for a select few. Most people won't want to spend that money for the performance.

 

[monstercameron]

Hell, going on this idea, I'd add that after people play a bit and form an opinion you lift the veil to reveal two rigs.

One the size of a GPU box the other size of a small person.

"Impressed?"

Then stick a ref GTX 980 Ti in there and let the fan go hog wild and if the "library quiet" claim is any where close to true, you just impressed a crowd of people.

But knowing AMD, they'll get the faster custom cooled GTX 980 Ti and stick the Nano in a case with no fans to push the "see it's quiet" angle only for it to throttle or BSOD mid demo.

Amd has done something like that before with Trinity.

 

[Absolute0]

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?

 

[bystander36]

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?

That is the most likely case. It also looks good in some prebuilt system that boasts power and is tiny. The same rational you see with iMac's.