R9 Nano £499 -> £399

ALXAndy · 17 Dec 2015 at 17:44

andybird123 said:
I see everone on the AMD side is wilfully ignoring the fact that you can get out-of-the-box clocked 980ti's that run over 20% higher than the reference models being used to make their case of "I don't overclock my cards so I made the right purchase if I stick my head in the sand"

And we've been here before too and the fact that you usually have to pay a premium for said cards means they're not exactly bargains.

Seriously do you ever get tired of repeating yourself over and over and over?

Ian Evey · 17 Dec 2015 at 17:51

elrasho said:
Hmmmm Im intrigues about this HBM memory, going to read up on it. If I can get +60fps in games life BF4 with everything on Ultra (maybe AA down a bit) with a Nano I might just get one with a cheap FreeSync monitor.

As you have a 970 why dont you just buy a gsync monitor and save money.

Last time i played bf4 it was around 80fps maxed on a 780 at 1920x1200 so i would think a 970 would be at least as good.

Although i have not played since december 2014

humbug · 17 Dec 2015 at 17:56

tommybhoy said:
Ti's fine on an open bench

lol.....

TheMorningStar · 17 Dec 2015 at 19:19

Avenged7Fold said:
You definitely cant compare usage between a ti and fury. The more Vram available, the more that a game will use even at the same settings, regardless of whether it is HMB or not. If what you said is true, every game where a furyx would use more than 2gb (which is practically every game) a 980 would fall flat on its face. There have even been cases of crazy mods making fury hit 4gb limit while allowing a ti to run as normal. By your logic, it should be the Ti to give out first. HMB helps VRAM usage in many ways but not in every way.

I have no doubt the fury comes with enough VRAM but your explanation of using a literal amount of VRAM relative to a non HMB card cant be right. With that logic, the Fury would never run out of VRAM before a Ti and though we know that a fury running out would only be rare, it is definitely not unheard of.

Also if you were correct, it would be proportional irrespective of resolution, where we actually see the nano/fury usage increase just a little going from 1440p to 4k, where as it seems to have very similar usage to the Ti up until 4k.

I dont think you can compare Ti and Fury RAM numbers and come out with any ratio which applies. I dont see why things like frame buffering and such would feel the benefit of the larger bus.

As I say a more technical explanation can be found in the Fury/x/Nano threads and more on youtube if you desire. You should also look out for the side by side comparisons where a level runthrough on both a 980ti and a FuryX is splitscreen and you can see the memory usage of the Fury @ 50%ish of the 980ti memory utilisation, @ the same detail settings, which is lining up pretty much exactly with what they told us pre launch.

I'm sure that is oversimplifying it but from the empirical evidence at hand this is exactly what is happening. No idea about mods, maybe they have issues with the textures or something, that is beyond the scope of my understanding, maybe one of the AMD reps can comment on that.

kaku · 17 Dec 2015 at 21:17

Squabbling aside, it's a much-needed price drop but IMO the damage has already been done. Nano has gained a reputation for being an over-priced niche card and I think most people that would have bought one have already gone 980Ti. If it launched at this price it would have been a different story.

JediFragger · 17 Dec 2015 at 21:23

kaku said:
Squabbling aside, it's a much-needed price drop but IMO the damage has already been done. Nano has gained a reputation for being an over-priced niche card and I think most people that would have bought one have already gone 980Ti. If it launched at this price it would have been a different story.

AMD aren't even dropping the price! OcUK are doing it as they're a dead duck and need to shift :eek:

Boomstick777 · 17 Dec 2015 at 21:33

Gibbo said:
Hi there

No price drop, OcUK is just moving the prices down to clear as not selling. We will then only stock the Sapphire product going forward until an official price move is made.

These need to be MSRP of £389.99, hopefully it will happen in 2016.

^^ I really Like Gibbo's straight forward posting style.

Def overpriced VS the competition, even if it fits a niche market, to pricey. £399 is much better.

pmc25 · 17 Dec 2015 at 22:18

It's interesting how Sapphire have made the jump. I suspect they were testing the waters with the huge pretty much Germany and Austria wide reduction of the Fury Nano, and OCUK getting a few for Black Friday too.

I expect they sold so many (and have placed much larger orders with AMD at a reduced price) in Germany that they decided to make the reduction permanent, even if their competitors want to maintain a base price £100 / €150 higher.

pmc25 · 17 Dec 2015 at 22:20

P.S. My Fury Nano is excellent. Considering its size, performance, (lack of) noise & heat and the price (I got the BF deal) I can't think of another card that I've owned in the 20 years I've had PCs that comes close as an overall package.

JediFragger · 17 Dec 2015 at 22:31

pmc25 said:
P.S. My Fury Nano is excellent. Considering its size, performance, (lack of) noise & heat and the price (I got the BF deal) I can't think of another card that I've owned in the 20 years I've had PCs that comes close as an overall package.

Good to know! These really seem to be excellent cards for mini-builds

tommybhoy · 18 Dec 2015 at 01:01

Boomstick777 said:
Def overpriced VS the competition, even if it fits a niche market, to pricey. £399 is much better.

Titan paved the way, now they are all too pricey.

JediFragger · 18 Dec 2015 at 01:22

tommybhoy said:
Titan paved the way, now they are all too pricey.

+1

Davedree · 18 Dec 2015 at 01:27

Boomstick777 said:
^^ I really Like Gibbo's straight forward posting style.

Def overpriced VS the competition, even if it fits a niche market, to pricey. £399 is much better.

389 for the HIs, nearly got me :-)

Disco_P · 18 Dec 2015 at 08:04

Is this worth serious consideration as an upgrade from a gtx titan?

It's completing against 980 ti and a £550 titan X.

Every card would be watercooled and overclocked.

Boomstick777 · 18 Dec 2015 at 08:17

tommybhoy said:
Titan paved the way, now they are all too pricey.

Yeah I'm not so sure, the 980 Ti beats the AMD cards at similar prices, the Titan X is just the show Pony for the big wallet guys. AMD don't have anything to compete at that level yet.. I expect if AMD's next lot of cards bring more performance they will quite happily occupy the £800 slot as well

Boomstick777 · 18 Dec 2015 at 08:19

Disco_P said:
Is this worth serious consideration as an upgrade from a gtx titan?

It's completing against 980 ti and a £550 titan X.

Every card would be watercooled and overclocked.

The Nano is a really decent card, performance is great, power consumption is great. I would go for it, only negative is reports of coil whine but they might break in over time.

ALXAndy · 18 Dec 2015 at 10:35

Poneros said:
What you're saying isn't true, this isn't limited to large itx, unless you consider the Ncase M1 large itx. Or the upcoming https://www.dan-cases.com/dana4.php They can all fit in 980ti's in, so where's the advantage for the Nano?

There are hundreds of cases that are barely any deeper than the board itself.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lian-li-pc-q30a-mini-tower-mini-itx-chassis-silver-ca-643-ll.html

For example. If you check out the Nano thread you will see a guy running a Lian Li which will only hold something like the Nano.

Then of course there's the Raijintek Metis and god knows how many others. I know this because I did an ITX build for myself last year and I can't tell you how many cases I looked at that wouldn't take a Titan Black. Honestly if you think those cases that can take a full sized 980ti are small then you really haven't looked at the entire range of available ITX cases.

Poneros said:
I wasn't really making a price analysis so much as emphasizing that the Nano's lacking in too many areas. What I said was, even if price wasn't a consideration (i.e. if it would have an advantage in other areas then the price could be justified) you'd have a hard time to argue in favour of it based on other factors. Once you also factor in price, the case is even clearer (but the argument against it can be made regardless).

It's not lacking anywhere. No matter what resolution it's faster than a 980. However is that lacking? The price was wrong, not the performance.

If they were cheaper they'd have flown out the doors.

andybird123 · 18 Dec 2015 at 10:43

ALXAndy said:
And we've been here before too and the fact that you usually have to pay a premium for said cards means they're not exactly bargains.

Seriously do you ever get tired of repeating yourself over and over and over?

my 980ti that boosts to 1440 on default settings cost me £527, the same manufacturer the cheapest FuryX I can find is £540, even if you go £499 FuryX the cost difference is 5%, the performance difference is 20%

I'll stop repeating myself when you stop trying to kid everyone on the OVERCLOCKERS forum that no one here is interested in overclocking results

Gregster · 18 Dec 2015 at 10:44

Disco_P said:
Is this worth serious consideration as an upgrade from a gtx titan?

It's completing against 980 ti and a £550 titan X.

Every card would be watercooled and overclocked.

No it isn't. You should be looking to a 980Ti or Fury/X as a minimum really and even then I would sit with the Titan till Pascal or Greenland.

ALXAndy · 18 Dec 2015 at 11:07

andybird123 said:
I'll stop repeating myself when you stop trying to kid everyone on the OVERCLOCKERS forum that no one here is interested in overclocking results

Eh? what are you talking about?