£379 x2 = 758 - amd over optimistic pricing = £650
Nvidia best 980 ti g1 £600 but the one everyone's waiting for is £650 the evga hydro.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Radeon Nano thread
- Thread starter truther
- Start date
£379 x2 = 758 - amd over optimistic pricing = £650
Nvidia best 980 ti g1 £600 but the one everyone's waiting for is £650 the evga hydro.
Highly unlikely, while the good 980Ti's are at least £550, if the performance of 2/390/X crossfire is anything to go by then 2 nano's would beat the complete crap out of a 980Ti for maybe £150 more.
yes but currently xfire scaling is beating nvidin sli so there actually no problem.
Why are you pricing the Nano against the G1 or Hydro, How about we use the highest SKU of Nano at £419(£838 for two). Plus you then have the troubles of any dual card setup.
I personally would prefer the best single card solution(980ti or Fury X, which ever vender you prefer).
XFire scaling has been beating SLI since they moved away from connectors. Frame pacing is generally a bit worse than sli but not by any amount that matters really.
The main problem I see people complaining about with Xfire is how long it takes for them to come out with profiles. Far Cry 4 being the example that everyone likes to throw around. I am quite lucky as I tend to stay away from new AAA PC games though as they are always released in an absolutely horrendous state. Even GTAV which was considered an absolutely amazing port (and it is) was still pretty poor at launch.
because AMD prices will come down .
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,187
Maybe get yourself a Ti and a 'Cat of Nine Tails' too so you can 'punish yourself' ?
At least your gaming will be sweet 
Are you just trolling?
I think a good pricing structure for AMD's line up would be:
Fury-X £430
Fury £380
Fury-Nano £320
390-X £270
390 £220
380 £160 (already is)
370 £120 (already is)
360 £80
Hopefully once the Fiji yields get to normal levels the whole range can come down to there ^^^^ abouts.
Fury-X £430
Fury £380
Fury-Nano £320
390-X £270
390 £220
380 £160 (already is)
370 £120 (already is)
360 £80
Hopefully once the Fiji yields get to normal levels the whole range can come down to there ^^^^ abouts.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Ive seen the reviews, and they just don't make sense (apart from the [H] ones), as the experts on here don't agree, and they also don't agree on their pricing, as they state they are way too expensive.
They have the FX competing with the 980s, but they are way too expensive, as they are £530 and up, where as the cheapest 980 is only £389.
The Fury non X, is competing with their own 390s, but is again, way too expensive, as they are £440 up, where as the cheapest 390s are only £260, plus they have more vram.
Now bearing in mind, that the Fury non X, is only competing with the 390s, after its been overclocked to 1040, then its a given, that if the Nano, is only going to be around 860 on the core, then its going to be quite a bit slower than the 390s, and the 290s, seen as the 390s are just 290 rebrands.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Aye, not sure why everyone is so down on the Fury range - honestly the Fury (pro) seems like a good card to me, can't see why all the rage.
Yes, it's not a clear 'must buy' if you had top tier AMD cards already, but for new buyers it's competitive with nVidias range (though the 390 is a smashing buy still, regardless of if it's an old card refreshed)
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I hoped the FuryX would do better than a 980Ti for less etc, but where they sit now is no terrible position in terms of tech, just they don't have the market appeal of nVidia. I still see lots of "don't go AMD cause of drivers" even though right now nVidia's drivers are terrible and have been for a few releases. Hard to gain market share vs. blanket perceptions like that!
Last edited:
They are overpriced but to say the Fury-X competes with the 980 is an exaggeration, even at 1440P its a lot closer to the 980TI then it is to the 980, at 4K there is 2% in it
The 390X is a good competitor to the 980 at 1440P
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Like i said, the reviews just don't make sense, only HardOCP agreed with the experts on here.
From their FX review
Their Fury Vs 390 head to head, showing them similar performance.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/13/msi_r9_390x_gaming_vs_asus_strix_fury_review/8
They also agreed on the 390s just being rebrands of the 290s, so its obvious a Nano clocked at only 860 (thereabouts), will be a fair bit slower than em.
From their FX review
Their Fury Vs 390 head to head, showing them similar performance.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/13/msi_r9_390x_gaming_vs_asus_strix_fury_review/8
They also agreed on the 390s just being rebrands of the 290s, so its obvious a Nano clocked at only 860 (thereabouts), will be a fair bit slower than em.
Last edited:
I thought it was pretty well known HardOCP is pro nvidia and tries its hardest to make AMD look bad? Or am I thinking of another site
Maybe thats why they did it.
what kind of trollling is this...
The problem is the Nvidia cards offer a better bang for buck than the AMD cards. So although the Fury and FuryX are not too far behind in performance, and not too far behind in performance per $, they are still worse than Nvidia's offerings in both regards.
And at 1080P, the resolution a majority of people use, the performance can only be described as disappointing really..
I thought it was pretty well known HardOCP is pro nvidia and tries its hardest to make AMD look bad? Or am I thinking of another site
Maybe thats why they did it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBp4ANrX8rk
390x is right up there with the fury.
In The Witcher 3 its 4-5 FPS behind consistently, not a massive amount, but considering the game is only running at 40-50, its a 10% increase. The 980 is also 1 fps below it too which is in itself ofc, only 3 fps above the 390X.
I don't really trust unity for any form of tests... because.. well yeah...
Although there it is still almost always 3-4 fps higher, again more than the 980, somehow really far behind the Fury X in that one though.
Same with the others. The fury is higher than the 390X, higher than the 980.
Yeah the 390X is up there with the Fury, its one of the reasons I think both the Fury and the Fury X are overpriced right now, plus 390/390X are by far the best price/performance buys.
If you really wanted to show the poor price to performance of it, it should be compared to a 390.
The problem with the Fury X and Fury is that the 2/390/X were and still are amazing price/performance buys, but AMD can't give them away, and needed to price its newer faster cards above it.
Last edited:
If its 2x performance per watt, the nano has a TDP of 175watts where the 290x has 280watts or something?
that would put it about 140 watts to be equal to a 390x but its not its 175 so its obviously been clocked high enough to be faster.
Gibbo is right on the ball its slightly faster than a 390x but slower than fury pro.