AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card PAPER Launch @ [H]

Mr. Perfect said:
I've been sensing a lot of hostility between [H] and AMD lately, are you guys in some sort of feud? :confused:
Click to expand...

Snus said:
Well, it is at is it supposed to be, nano is crap, and thats a fact as long as you review it for the performence entusiast, in SFF however , we compare it to the NV970, wich is the fastest SFF card as for now.

So its understanbel that [H] will diss this card, its not a good card performens wise, but hopfully its a dam good card for us that want to build a small, silent GHTPC, it has 1 unanswered question to tick, and thats noise, wich is extreally importent to some, including me.
Click to expand...


You must be referring to the Gold and Silver awards we have given to AMD cards recently? Is that part of the feud you just dreamed up in your head?

http://hardocp.com/reviews/gpu_video_cards/

And AMD states that it is library quiet, so why do you need a review site to verify that?

SilverSliver said:
I think [H] just calls out bullshit when they see it.
Click to expand...

Glad someone can read, and not just between the lines. :)
 
Mr. Perfect said:
I've been sensing a lot of hostility between [H] and AMD lately, are you guys in some sort of feud? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think [H] just comes of as hostile because they are just as frustrated with the direction AMD is taking as much as anyone else. Everyone was hoping that Fiji would breathe some much needed competition back into the dGPU space, but they failed to deliver. Now AMD's marketshare continues to decline.
 
Snus said:
Well, it is at is it supposed to be, nano is crap, and thats a fact as long as you review it for the performence entusiast, in SFF however , we compare it to the NV)70, wich is the fastest SFF card as for now.

So its understanbel that [H] will diss this card, its not a good card performens wise, but hopfully its a dam good card for us that want to build a small, silent GHTPC, it has 1 unanswered question to tick, and thats noise, wich is extreally importent to some, including me.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not fully up on SFF systems, but I've seen plenty of small cases that are purposefully designed for normal sized cards? Even small cases that can run a small WC loop? I mean, if the market for enthusiast level SFF living room PCs are small as is - the market for cards that cannot even output HDMI 2.0 is even smaller.

It's seemingly a product that misses on a lot of the marks it's intended to hit. It's ultra small -- exceptionally so -- which would have been useful 5 years ago when there was not a large selection of quality cases in all sizes. It's a "4k ready" card that cannot display 4k in the living room @ 60hz/4:4:4 with the native connections. It's also exceedingly expensive.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
I remember those little VIAs, didn't they have their own x86-compatible CPU design built in?
Click to expand...

Yes, i loved playing with them, was fun, used a rizer card and the gpu sideways over the mitx board, then u maybe could game a litte. the micro itx xard had via onboard graphic to :), so u could browse the internet as it was back then with it.
 
maxius said:
i hope they were joking i see the fury lineup ending like with a really damn good software bundle

Fury X
650 realistically 600

Fury Nano
550 realistically 500

Fury
500 realistically 450

sure it will hurt but they would gain market share
Click to expand...

Market share doesnt meen a thing , unless you earn money on it, im not suppriesied if AMD breaks in a short time, their finacial sucks, markedshare sucks, and cpus wise, i dont want to say, but well it ......, gpu wise they are okey, not outstanding, but okey, the litttel giant is doomed to fail u know :), some few hopes left for amd, zen and dx12, but i tink pascal will be just as good as amd with paralell workload as cgn is. AMD gave up high end cpu, i think if they cant compete in high end in 2016, they give up high end gpu as well.
 
I have no brand loyalty. But I like to buy AMD recently because we need the competition in the market. I don't want to see AMD die.

That said I will not pay over $500 for a video card. I was hoping it would be $499.
 
SilverSliver said:
I guess I'm not fully up on SFF systems, but I've seen plenty of small cases that are purposefully designed for normal sized cards? Even small cases that can run a small WC loop? I mean, if the market for enthusiast level SFF living room PCs are small as is - the market for cards that cannot even output HDMI 2.0 is even smaller.

It's seemingly a product that misses on a lot of the marks it's intended to hit. It's ultra small -- exceptionally so -- which would have been useful 5 years ago when there was not a large selection of quality cases in all sizes. It's a "4k ready" card that cannot display 4k in the living room @ 60hz/4:4:4 with the native connections. It's also exceedingly expensive.
Click to expand...

Well SFF is a smal niche at best, but thats natural, laptops are already SFF, so yes there are cases that can fit normal cards, but in my opinion, thats not a SFF build. Its a hybrid build. Wich is okey for most. Im real courious to see what thouse mod builders AMD have sent the nano can come up with, will it be the return of the popularety of real SFF builds, or is SFF just dying slowly as AMD is :)
 
Everyone here with a Twitter account should be slamming AMD underneath their Nano announcement. Let them and everyone else know that this is unacceptable!
 
And AMD states that it is library quiet, so why do you need a review site to verify that?

Kyle, yes i do, it can have terribel coil wine and so on, and fan can be shit, and amd can be lying, so that is what i will be looking for, is that hard to understand ?, same as Titan buyers, it has to check out before premium is paid, it may not be the things that [H] is looking for, but for me noise is the singel most importent thing left to get verified when it comes to the Nano. And well ur metrics is okey for what u test for, nothing wrong with that, and Brents performace analyse is as correct as it could be, right, given what metrics it has to mesure up to at [H] it will natural fail, so we who still love SFF will have to read between the lines to find out if its Titan worth over 980TI for us ;)

Edit : (wich is the nv 970 as for now)
 
Last edited:
dscherf said:
Titan X came out before the 980Ti. I can't speak for the editors here but if the reverse was true I have no doubt they would have cried bullshit.
Click to expand...

So? Its still being sold at that price and both cards are available now. Who cares what was first when looking to buy now?
 
Semantics said:
980Ti came out after Titan X btw. And Titan X is a true halo product nothing nvidia offers is faster and the premium in memory can matter in niche cases.
Click to expand...

Again, who cares what came out first if they are priced like that now. If you are buying a card now, how is the Titan not way over priced?

Can you show a single benchmark showing that the 12gb of ram is needed? All reviews I've seen show 980 TI in SLI keeping even with Titan, and sometimes doing better do to throttling.
 
DracoNB said:
Again, who cares what came out first if they are priced like that now. If you are buying a card now, how is the Titan not way over priced?

Can you show a single benchmark showing that the 12gb of ram is needed? All reviews I've seen show 980 TI in SLI keeping even with Titan, and sometimes doing better do to throttling.
Click to expand...
Reviews it matters, or do you want [H]to go out of their way to re-evaluate every card every-time a new card comes out? Sounds like your vendetta is that you feel that's it's unfair that [H] expressed an opinion on a card preview without going out of their way to express an opinion on a card not being previewed/reviewed.
 
Snus said:
And AMD states that it is library quiet, so why do you need a review site to verify that?

Kyle, yes i do, it can have terribel coil wine and so on, and fan can be shit, and amd can be lying, so that is what i will be looking for, is that hard to understand ?
Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question considering that you implied above that what we had to say about AMD products was because of a "feud" between HardOCP and AMD, rather than the how we actually view the hardware we have hands on experience with.
 
DracoNB said:
Again, who cares what came out first if they are priced like that now. If you are buying a card now, how is the Titan not way over priced?

Can you show a single benchmark showing that the 12gb of ram is needed? All reviews I've seen show 980 TI in SLI keeping even with Titan, and sometimes doing better do to throttling.
Click to expand...

Custom 980-Ti's tend to destroy the Titan-X in almost every game. The Titan-X is an unnecessary product for people with more dollars than sense. Which is fair, because that's been the Titan's shtick since the original Titan. Technically, the water-cooling on the Fury-X isn't needed, and like the 12GB of ram on the Titan-X, just their to justify the ridiculous price for those that can afford it.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...4-zotac-gtx-980-ti-amp-extreme-review-11.html

An Air-Cooled Fury-X at $550 would be PERFECT competition for the GTX980-Ti, but AMD had to tack on a $30 watercooler and price it at $650 in some diluted hope that no one would notice it's slower than they cheaper GTX 980-Ti.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ..._re=msi_GTX_980_Ti_6gb-_-14-127-891-_-Product

That GTX980-Ti is $610 and comes with MGSV. Figure in the Game and you have a $550 GTX 980-Ti that tends to be faster than the more expensive R9-Fury-X and orders of magnitude faster than the also more expensive R9-Fury-Vanilla that [H] recently reviewed.

Whoever is coming up with pricing at AMD is either an oblivious idiot, purposely trying to destroy the company from within, or AMD is actively price-fixing the market again with nVidia (happened before, AMD and nVidia were caught).
 
DracoNB said:
Again, who cares what came out first if they are priced like that now. If you are buying a card now, how is the Titan not way over priced?

Can you show a single benchmark showing that the 12gb of ram is needed? All reviews I've seen show 980 TI in SLI keeping even with Titan, and sometimes doing better do to throttling.
Click to expand...

I am not pushing a Titan X. [H]ardOCP is not pushing a Titan X. Do you see anyone from [H] saying that the Titan X is a good value now? Should they have to re-run their benchmarks for the Titan X and take its gold crown away just because it's been matched or superseded by its successor?

I almost think you're trying to bray just for the sake of saying something to take away heat from AMD for releasing a decent card at a not-so-decent price point.
 
HOOfan_1 said:
I worked in a library for 3 years, it wasn't that quiet.
Click to expand...

Also, AMD didn't say WHICH library. For all we know the library they go to has vacuum cleaners and leaf-blowers going on 24/7 with that Flame-Guitar guy from Mad Max: Fury Road playing music every 20 minutes.
 
Rizen said:
Do you still live in Norway? When I was in Oslo last summer it was $15 US for a beer :p
Click to expand...

Hehe, u see most things are cheap compared to beer in norway, so its easy to spend a littel extra as long as we use beer as our valuta :))
 
It seems for these cards to perform within 90% core clock and with 100 Watts less power that they are cherry picked Fury cores.

I wonder how they would do if they were stuck in a Water cooling setup with altered voltage/amps.
 
dscherf said:
I am not pushing a Titan X. [H]ardOCP is not pushing a Titan X. Do you see anyone from [H] saying that the Titan X is a good value now? Should they have to re-run their benchmarks for the Titan X and take its gold crown away just because it's been matched or superseded by its successor?

I almost think you're trying to bray just for the sake of saying something to take away heat from AMD for releasing a decent card at a not-so-decent price point.
Click to expand...

Semantics said:
Reviews it matters, or do you want [H]to go out of their way to re-evaluate every card every-time a new card comes out? Sounds like your vendetta is that you feel that's it's unfair that [H] expressed an opinion on a card preview without going out of their way to express an opinion on a card not being previewed/reviewed.
Click to expand...

Uhhh did you bother to look at my post at all?

They were just pushing for it 2 days ago in their latest Witcher review.
 
dscherf said:
I am not pushing a Titan X. [H]ardOCP is not pushing a Titan X. Do you see anyone from [H] saying that the Titan X is a good value now? Should they have to re-run their benchmarks for the Titan X and take its gold crown away just because it's been matched or superseded by its successor?

I almost think you're trying to bray just for the sake of saying something to take away heat from AMD for releasing a decent card at a not-so-decent price point.
Click to expand...

I always thought the Titan-X was kind of a joke card. Most Custom GTX980-Ti's are a performance class faster, and significantly better values.

The Titan-X and Fury-X share one thing in common. Pointless additions in hopes of justifying their ridiculous prices. With the Fury-X it the water-cooler, with the Titan-X it's the 12GB of RAM. Overclocked Vanilla-Furys and Custom GTX980-Ti's bare out that watercooling and 6 extra GB of ram is not necessary for high performance.
 
"On the NVIDIA side, nothing at all beats the TITAN X for performance in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Yeah, it costs $999, and it should do the best, and it proves that it does. AMD has nothing that can compete with it in this game. It stands in a league of its own, if you simply want the fastest single-GPU experience in this game go with the TITAN X."

Did you read the review? They did point out the price. Did they mislead anyone? Is there any other single GPU card that meets it or beats it?

And here's more:

"Second, the GTX 980 Ti offers amazing performance and experience for $649. Not a cheap price, but it offers near TITAN X performance at a much lower price. Its value is greater than the TITAN X because of this. It does beat the Radeon R9 Fury X and allows a better The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt gameplay experience."

Did you read a special review that the rest of us didn't?
 
dscherf said:
"On the NVIDIA side, nothing at all beats the TITAN X for performance in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Yeah, it costs $999, and it should do the best, and it proves that it does. AMD has nothing that can compete with it in this game. It stands in a league of its own, if you simply want the fastest single-GPU experience in this game go with the TITAN X."

Did you read the review? They did point out the price. Did they mislead anyone? Is there any other single GPU card that meets it or beats it?

And here's more:

"Second, the GTX 980 Ti offers amazing performance and experience for $649. Not a cheap price, but it offers near TITAN X performance at a much lower price. Its value is greater than the TITAN X because of this. It does beat the Radeon R9 Fury X and allows a better The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt gameplay experience."

Did you read a special review that the rest of us didn't?
Click to expand...

Because that wasn't a knock on the Titan price at all, they tried to justify its price point by saying "Yeah it is the best" even though it was barely any faster and like many other people would point out, an overclocked (even factory OC) 980 TI would do the same for much, much less.

Its just double standards. Fury X gets dissed and Titan X praised, all while 6 FPS difference between the two for $350 extra. Knock both or neither, its double standards to only point out one as overpriced for performance.
 
DracoNB said:
Because that wasn't a knock on the Titan price at all, they tried to justify its price point by saying "Yeah it is the best" even though it was barely any faster and like many other people would point out, an overclocked (even factory OC) 980 TI would do the same for much, much less.

Its just double standards. Fury X gets dissed and Titan X praised, all while 6 FPS difference between the two for $350 extra. Knock both or neither, its double standards to only point out one as overpriced for performance.
Click to expand...

And this is relevant to this thread how? Oh, let me make it really relevant for you:

Since the Nano costs the same as a FuryX and is approximately 10% slower than either the FuryX or 980Ti, you can get even less FPS!

Now your statement is relevant. You're welcome.
 
Snus said:
And AMD states that it is library quiet, so why do you need a review site to verify that?
Click to expand...


Seriously? Same reason review sites were needed to verify "Fury X will be able to overclock like no tomorrow". How'd that turn out? AMD will say anything.
 
Until supply is >> demand AMD won't lower prices. Fury X is consistently sold out, thus probably will be to. Personally I think it's due to production difficulties but that doesn't change the fact it can be hard to find one in stock.

Why is the Titan X even in this thread? Apples and Oranges? Most people that have Titan X's bought them months and months before the 980ti came out.

The price should be what the market can sustain. Since they are never in stock it seems priced about right.
 
dscherf said:
I am not pushing a Titan X. [H]ardOCP is not pushing a Titan X. Do you see anyone from [H] saying that the Titan X is a good value now? Should they have to re-run their benchmarks for the Titan X and take its gold crown away just because it's been matched or superseded by its successor?

I almost think you're trying to bray just for the sake of saying something to take away heat from AMD for releasing a decent card at a not-so-decent price point.
Click to expand...

Bros that cry about Titan series and then try to work it into some convoluted blanket statement about all Nvidia GPU's is like the people that whine about Intel because 1000 dollar Extreme Edition CPU's exist. It's grasping at straws.
 
DracoNB said:
Because that wasn't a knock on the Titan price at all, they tried to justify its price point by saying "Yeah it is the best" even though it was barely any faster and like many other people would point out, an overclocked (even factory OC) 980 TI would do the same for much, much less.

Its just double standards. Fury X gets dissed and Titan X praised, all while 6 FPS difference between the two for $350 extra. Knock both or neither, its double standards to only point out one as overpriced for performance.
Click to expand...

I think your own personal bias is coloring what you read. [H] is saying that because the TX costs the most it should offer the best performance in the game. The card does offer the best performance. According to their tests it is also the fastest single-GPU card out there. If people are looking for that then that is what they should buy. I'm not sure how laying out the facts is pushing a card. In the Witcher 3 review more than once they say "only" in terms of how much faster the TX is compared to the Ti. Facts don't have double standards. Facts don't have bias. They are simply what they are. As per [H]'s tests (the only ones they take into account for their reviews) the Fury X offers LESS performance than the Ti for the SAME price. That is a fact and backed up by all the testing they've done since it released. The FX offers less value than the Ti for most people based on those tests. It is what it is.
 
Dayaks said:
Until supply is >> demand AMD won't lower prices. Fury X is consistently sold out, thus probably will be to. Personally I think it's due to production difficulties but that doesn't change the fact it can be hard to find one in stock.

Why is the Titan X even in this thread? Apples and Oranges? Most people that have Titan X's bought them months and months before the 980ti came out.

The price should be what the market can sustain. Since they are never in stock it seems priced about right.
Click to expand...


Well if u consider the form factor , price wice for a SFF build, the top card there is nv 970. and its round 300$ cheaper than the nano, and isnt Titan round 300 more than a 980TI, first and second best in both form factors, will have a price diffrense, but then again we maybe are fewer SFF builders that would pay that premium for the top tier, but well we that get a few more % increase from a 970 to a nano, wich is nr 1 and 2 in SFF, that those who go for nr 1 instead of number 2, with the regular gpus :)
 
But u see the price premium for a real SFF build want stop with the gpu, next is the cpu, u cant look at price, u have to look at the cpu that uses least power that is abel to feed the gpu solution u choose, and well that usually comes with a premium, u dont want a big ass cpu cooler in a SFF build. Wich then gives u the opperunety to find the smallest psu in size capabel to run what gpu and cpu to build. So expect a price premium for almost evry component in a real SFF build-

Thoose are concerns that thouse who built regular pc has no concern for, but thats the essence of SFF, as much performace as u can get with as low noise and size as possibel, and that my dear forumfriends is what SFF is abaut :)
 
DigitalGriffin said:
It seems for these cards to perform within 90% core clock and with 100 Watts less power that they are cherry picked Fury cores.

I wonder how they would do if they were stuck in a Water cooling setup with altered voltage/amps.
Click to expand...

Or maybe FuryX is just pushed really hard, and needs lots more voltage to gain just 10% more clock... or rather I guess like 11.1% more clock.

Anyways about Fury Nano in general... I mean do an ITX build, you will end up paying more for less than you would have gotten for an ATX build. You pay extra for companies to build stuff for that niche market. Nano is not the high volume consumer version of FuryX, its some niche product. AMD didn't make this clear, people's expectations were way off, AMD took no steps to set people straight in the past couple months, AMD does a paper launch that people hate, and product fails to meet people's off-base expectations.. and thus is a failure in their eyes dispite product being fine for what it is. How does AMD continue to end up in this position?
 
Why do people care about a paper launch for a product that is clearly garbage and no one should purchase?
 
bexamous said:
Or maybe FuryX is just pushed really hard, and needs lots more voltage to gain just 10% more clock... or rather I guess like 11.1% more clock.

Anyways about Fury Nano in general... I mean do an ITX build, you will end up paying more for less than you would have gotten for an ATX build. You pay extra for companies to build stuff for that niche market. Nano is not the high volume consumer version of FuryX, its some niche product. AMD didn't make this clear, people's expectations were way off, AMD took no steps to set people straight in the past couple months, AMD does a paper launch that people hate, and product fails to meet people's off-base expectations.. and thus is a failure in their eyes dispite product being fine for what it is. How does AMD continue to end up in this position?
Click to expand...
Yup could easily mean that fury X was bloated and pushed to hit target numbers 980ti range which ate up efficiency. OC a card and you can see how quickly they become power hungry.
 
Semantics said:
Yup could easily mean that fury X was bloated and pushed to hit target numbers 980ti range which ate up efficiency. OC a card and you can see how quickly they become power hungry.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's why the guy said it was an overclocking monster. I am guessing the clocks, originally, were going to be even less competitive versus the 980 Ti. They knew that they could not release it that way, so they upped the clocks as much as they could from the factory to compete. As a result, there was no more headroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top