Fury XT and Pro prices

[Glo.]

Hopefully, but in the slides the Dual Fiji was the one that had quote "Worlds Fastest Graphics Card" next to it (http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMD-Radeon-Fury-Series-Fiji-GPU-Cards.jpg) so expecting the Fury X to be around 980ti level performance.

Well, it would be odd to say for Fury X "The Fastest GPU in the World" if you are realeasing in short future GPU thats made of two of those dies. And assuming based on that that Fury X is slower than Titan X is even more odd.

We still have to wait for reviews.

 

[xthetenth]

So, are the 390 and 390X significantly faster than the 290 & 290X? If not, I don't see how the 970 & 980 are anything but helped as the cheaper-per-FPS cards phase into the SOS with exciting new price tag cards, and someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the >$500 graphics card market pretty much one or two percent of sales at best?

I've got to buy something this fall and frankly, I'm not seeing anything nearly as compelling as the 970 - which kinda sucks for me as I've better luck with AMD cards. (Got two defective 275s in a row, and in dozens of cards I've only gotten one other defective graphics card, a $1,500 Wildcat I smoked in the late 80s.) I was hoping for a compelling AMD card under $350 street or, failing that, at least something that would drive down the price of the 970. Am I just missing it?

Blowout sales on the 290 and 290X? They're more than competitive with the 970 for price/performance.

 

[werepossum]

Blowout sales on the 290 and 290X? They're more than competitive with the 970 for price/performance.

I'd jump on that unless it looks like the 300 series brings something unique and valuable (to me) to the table. If memory serves the idle and 2D power consumption is similar to the 970, so hopefully I wouldn't get hit too hard by my floating point-heavy programs. Although I do feel bad that I'm willing to burn more power just because of a slight bias.

Hey, all I'm asking for is 290X performance at 970 energy usage and a $250 sale price.

 

[happy medium]

Fiji pro should make the 980 irrelevant at 550USD.

The gtx980 is 469$ now. The Fiji pro better be a good deal faster to be 550$

 

[.vodka]

If we go by this,

Fury pro could be worth USD550, stock vs stock. OC vs OC, we don't know. Reviews sure are taking their time! 18 June is the day, right?

 

[5150Joker]

If these cards don't help AMD regain Marketshare, I don't know if anything will.

Fury might help them a bit but Fury X offers nothing over 980 Ti at that price point. I think the biggest selling point is the Nano but it all depends on how it's priced relative to 970. If it's $50-$100 MORE than 970, it won't sell enough to gain AMD any noticeable market share. The rest are boring rebrands.

 

[RussianSensation]

The gtx980 is 469$ now. The Fiji pro better be a good deal faster to be 550$

Fiji Pro at the same clocks should only be 14% slower than Fury X. 980 stands 0 chance. It's going to be HD7950 OC vs. 7970 OC situation as long as AMD keeps 64 ROPs and the entire 4096-bit bus.

Looks like some of us where right where we predicted Fury Pro to offer 87-90% of Titan X performance for $500-550. Also, this means > 50% faster performance than Titan X for just $100 more when going Fury CF. It's interesting how this exact scenario was being projected 3 months ago but Titan X owners would hear none of it.

980 will probably end up in no man's land in the hands of overclockers because based on rough specs of the Vanilla Fury, it should absolutely cream the 980 at high rez considering 980 will barely beat a 390X.

Also, you are using $469 price after rebates but it's not as if AMD's AiBs can't include rebates too. As far as the market goes it'll be $499 980 vs. $549 Fury Pro. NV will need a game bundle or another price drop.

 

[Head1985]

Fiji Pro at the same clocks should only be 14% slower than Fury X. 980 stands 0 chance. It's going to be HD7950 OC vs. 7970 OC situation as long as AMD keeps 64 ROPs and the entire 4096-bit bus.

Looks like some of us where right where we predicted Fury Pro to offer 87-90% of Titan X performance for $500-550. Also, this means > 50% faster performance than Titan X for just $100 more when going Fury CF. It's interesting how this exact scenario was being projected 3 months ago but Titan X owners would hear none of it.

980 will probably end up in no man's land in the hands of overclockers because based on rough specs of the
Vanilla Fury, it should absolutely cream the 980 at high rez considering 980 will barely beat a 390X.

Most likely pro will be 11% slower than FURY X and will compete vs 980TI

 

[RussianSensation]

Most likely pro will be 11% slower than FURY X and will compete vs 980TI

Ya, true. I am just being conservative. 27% higher shader and texture performance and likely 70%+ higher pixel fill-rate over a 290X, plus 512GB/sec HBM suggests Fury Pro will scale very well with overclocking.

I think at some point AMD will release an air cooled Fury X and drop the price on Fury Pro to $499. If that happens, NV will have nothing in the $350-500 space to counter that.

 

[happy medium]

NV will have nothing in the $350-500 space to counter that.

They have had nothing in the 200 to 350$ space for many months now and still are gaining market share. or the 350 to 500$ space either.

So you think this is Nvidia's lineup till Pascal? Nothing to counter the Nano,? really nothing more by the end of the summer?

gtx980ti 650$
gtx980 450$ in a few weeks.
gtx970 300$ in a few weeks
gtx960 200$

 

[n0x1ous]

Looks like some of us where right where we predicted Fury Pro to offer 87-90% of Titan X performance for $500-550. Also, this means > 50% faster performance than Titan X for just $100 more when going Fury CF. It's interesting how this exact scenario was being projected 3 months ago but Titan X owners would hear none of it.

Titan X is irrelevant. Sticking to 980ti comparisons, It's not quite as rosy

 

[AnandThenMan]

Titan X is irrelevant.

It's still for sale and I'm assuming people are still buying it. So not irrelevant.

 

[rainy]

The gtx980 is 469$ now.

Official price of GTX 980 is 499 dollars.
With rebates it's possible to buy a few models on 479-489 dollars level, however I don't see even a single one with price which you've mentioned.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600536050&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

 

[2is]

Titan X is irrelevant. Sticking to 980ti comparisons, It's not quite as rosy

Exactly. 50% faster when using two GPU's and paying more for them isn't exactly a homerun achievement. For those people wanting to play games on release day, they could very well be limited to a single GPU if we take recent history into account. So then you have a slower setup than a 980Ti that cost you twice as much.

If you want an apples to apples comparison. CF Fury vs SLI 980Ti and you're still slower for the same amount of money.

I can see how it would be easy to get excited if the 980Ti didn't exist, but it does.

 

[TemjinGold]

Exactly. 50% faster when using two GPU's and paying more for them isn't exactly a homerun achievement. For those people wanting to play games on release day, they could very well be limited to a single GPU if we take recent history into account. So then you have a slower setup than a 980Ti that cost you twice as much.

If you want an apples to apples comparison. CF Fury vs SLI 980Ti and you're still slower for the same amount of money.

I can see how it would be easy to get excited if the 980Ti didn't exist, but it does.

Really? 50% faster for $100 more is NOT an achievement?

 

[chimaxi83]

Really? 50% faster for $100 more is NOT an achievement?

2is is right though. Crossfire doesn't always work. Still doesn't work in The Witcher 3, what I'm assuming is a AAA GOTY contender, for example. So what should really be said is "for just $100 more when going Fury CF, when it works". Same for SLI, but it's the truth.

 

[el etro]

Want Fury Nano priced at $400 range. Nothing more.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Fury might help them a bit but Fury X offers nothing over 980 Ti at that price point. I think the biggest selling point is the Nano but it all depends on how it's priced relative to 970. If it's $50-$100 MORE than 970, it won't sell enough to gain AMD any noticeable market share. The rest are boring rebrands.

How do you know yet that it doesn't offer nothing over the 980ti? Have you seen a review yet?

 

[.vodka]

2is is right though. Crossfire doesn't always work. Still doesn't work in The Witcher 3, what I'm assuming is a AAA GOTY contender, for example. So what should really be said is "for just $100 more when going Fury CF, when it works". Same for SLI, but it's the truth.

This should hopefully change going forward with DX12 and its support for multi GPUs, benefiting both brands at the same time. Hopefully being the keyword :biggrin: But yeah, as of right now, it's a problem.

 

[tviceman]

Ya, true. I am just being conservative. 27% higher shader and texture performance and likely 70%+ higher pixel fill-rate over a 290X, plus 512GB/sec HBM suggests Fury Pro will scale very well with overclocking.

I think at some point AMD will release an air cooled Fury X and drop the price on Fury Pro to $499. If that happens, NV will have nothing in the $350-500 space to counter that.

Nvidia can easily afford to drop the 980 to $399 and the 970 to $279. GM204 is cheaper in every way to produce, bottle, and sell than Hawaii. Smaller die, less complex PCB required, half the vram of the new 390/390x standards. Also there is a large enough gap between the 980 and 980 TI for Nvidia to introduce another cut-down GM200 sku. IMO Nvidia is sitting just fine as the GM204 is hands down the best perf/w and perf/mm2 chip on 28nm. It's over priced now which means there is plenty of pricing lateral for Nvidia to work with. Also, the same goes for GM206. Super small die competing quite well with the 60% larger Tonga. Plenty of room to move prices there too.

I don't see how AMD does well at all, unless Fury X shocks and is 10% faster than Titan X.

 

[chimaxi83]

How do you know yet that it doesn't offer nothing over the 980ti? Have you seen a review yet?

Nope, but why wouldn't a (massively depreciated) Titan X owner try and talk down anything AMD does?

 

[KaRLiToS]

Nope, but why wouldn't a (massively depreciated) Titan X owner try and talk down anything AMD does?

I don't know! Do you?

 

[gdansk]

I don't see how AMD does well at all, unless Fury X shocks and is 10% faster than Titan X.

A $650 card needs to be 10% faster than a $1000 card to "do well"? Why such absurd demands? It only needs to be 10% faster than the 980 Ti to be a game changer.

I suppose it doesn't matter. Even if AMD did manage the top card they won't sell because of their higher power consumption, less vram, and cooling system that might not fit in all cases.

 

[tviceman]

A $650 card needs to be 10% faster than a $1000 card to "do well"? Why such absurd demands? It only needs to be 10% faster than the 980 Ti to be a game changer.

I suppose it doesn't matter. Even if AMD did manage the top card they won't sell because of their higher power consumption, less vram, and cooling system that might not fit in all cases.

The major fallacy in your argument is with regards to it's price and performance. AMD priced it at $649 because it isn't 10% faster than the 980 TI. If it were, it would also be faster than Titan X and AMD would be shouting that from the roof tops with in-house benchmarks all over the place ahead of reviews.

 

[2is]

Really? 50% faster for $100 more is NOT an achievement?

Read the post again.

First, There's ZERO reason to compare 4GB Fury to a 12GB Titan X and not a 6GB 980Ti.

Second, CF vs Single card

50% for $100 more is an extremely "optimistic" outlook to put it mildly. To put it truthfully, it's down right misleading.