-
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
Hi there
Well its not hard to work out really is it guys, use common sense.
Performance will be between 390X and Fury Pro. As will the price! So expect £360-£420ish if current prices remain as is as that would give AMD the following line up:
Fury X AIO: £529-£599
Fury Pro: £439-£459
Fury Nano: £379-£419
390X: £319-£359
390: £259-£279
There top-end line up has logical pricing, problem is all the prices are simply to high to sell in real large volumes, but as AMD don't have volume to sell then their high pricing strategy kind of makes sense.
P.S. Though the 390 is exceptionally priced and selling incredibly well at OcUK.
Well its not hard to work out really is it guys, use common sense.
Performance will be between 390X and Fury Pro. As will the price! So expect £360-£420ish if current prices remain as is as that would give AMD the following line up:
Fury X AIO: £529-£599
Fury Pro: £439-£459
Fury Nano: £379-£419
390X: £319-£359
390: £259-£279
There top-end line up has logical pricing, problem is all the prices are simply to high to sell in real large volumes, but as AMD don't have volume to sell then their high pricing strategy kind of makes sense.
P.S. Though the 390 is exceptionally priced and selling incredibly well at OcUK.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
The performance is going to be the thing, according to AMD it has a TDP of 175w that's over a third less than the fury nonX, where is that going to leave performance.
It cannot be that much slower, else it will fall short of the promised much faster than a 290x, seeing as the current Fury nonX comes very close to a 390x in some tests. I wouldn't be surprised to see it more expensive than the Fury nonX either.
It cannot be that much slower, else it will fall short of the promised much faster than a 290x, seeing as the current Fury nonX comes very close to a 390x in some tests. I wouldn't be surprised to see it more expensive than the Fury nonX either.
When the much cheaper 290s will smash em
The much cheaper 290's no longer exist, any remaining stocks anywhere are that last stock, all my cheap 290's are long gone.
260, 270, 280 and 290 series is now gone, EOL!
Exactly, we've allocated all our stocks to end users and have not opened Fury up to our distribution side of the business yet stock is so limited.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
The much cheaper 290's no longer exist, any remaining stocks anywhere are that last stock, all my cheap 290's are long gone.
260, 270, 280 and 290 series is now gone, EOL!
390s smash em as well, and going by your prices, even they will be cheaper, and have more vram.
Overclocked 390X with 8GB vram, £360
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-361-SP
How the hell is the slower Nano going to sell at £379 and up, and with less vram.
Last edited:
390s smash em as well, and going by your prices, even they will be cheaper, and have more vram.
Overclocked 390X with 8GB vram, £360
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-361-SP
How the hell is the slower Nano going to sell at £379 and up, and with less vram.
How do you figure out its slower... Also they may very well drop prices when the nano comes out to make more of a gap for it. Less VRAM doesn't matter much other than for extreme 4K cases which almost never happen during actual gaming anyway. Although it does affect ignorant people, although so does the idea of a newer memory technology.
Nano will be same performance as 290X.
Bad tech writers are incorrectly billing it as "twice as powerful as the 290X", when it's actually two times performance per watt vs. 290X.
At half the TDP of 290X, that makes it equal in performance with half the power draw.
Think of it as a miniITX version of 290X; which at close to £400, is way too expensive.
Bad tech writers are incorrectly billing it as "twice as powerful as the 290X", when it's actually two times performance per watt vs. 290X.
At half the TDP of 290X, that makes it equal in performance with half the power draw.
Think of it as a miniITX version of 290X; which at close to £400, is way too expensive.
390s smash em as well, and going by your prices, even they will be cheaper, and have more vram.
Overclocked 390X with 8GB vram, £360
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-361-SP
How the hell is the slower Nano going to sell at £379 and up, and with less vram.
The 390/X is clocked higher out of the box.
290: 947/1250
390: 1000/1500
290X: 1000/1250
390X: 1050/1500
If you test them all on the same drivers the 390/X are about 5% faster than the 290/X
Since disabling shaders doesn't actually make any difference to power consumption i suspect Fury Nano will be a binned full fat 4096 Shader Fiji running at about 900Mhz putting it at about 5% faster than a 390X with about 100 Watts less power consumption.
Its size and efficiency will be its selling point.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
As its rumoured to only be clocked around 860 on the core, if so, that will put it slower, as a Fury non X, which is overclocked to 1040 on the core, is only around on par with the 290s, slightly faster.
EDIT: Ok wow there really isn't much difference... I was sure it was bigger than that... maybe its because I was looking at anandtech mostly who still (for some incredibly stupid reason) use all reference cards, so the 290X they use is ****.
Last edited:
well imagine two very small cards in an itx rig , in xfire beating the crap out of a 980ti which cost more than them , that's our dream as well as cute
This is the problem for 290/X owners, there is nothing thats a worth while upgrade, not for the same money early 290/X owners bought their cards. not from AMD or Nvidia.
I quite like the MSI Gaming 390X, it seems to run at about 1200/1700 overclocked, 1250/1750 for benching, thats a good chunk higher than the 290X so for a 290P owner its a decent upgrade but it needs to come down to sub £300.
I quite like the MSI Gaming 390X, it seems to run at about 1200/1700 overclocked, 1250/1750 for benching, thats a good chunk higher than the 290X so for a 290P owner its a decent upgrade but it needs to come down to sub £300.
Hi there
Well its not hard to work out really is it guys, use common sense.
Performance will be between 390X and Fury Pro. As will the price! So expect £360-£420ish if current prices remain as is as that would give AMD the following line up:
Fury X AIO: £529-£599
Fury Pro: £439-£459
Fury Nano: £379-£419
390X: £319-£359
390: £259-£279
There top-end line up has logical pricing, problem is all the prices are simply to high to sell in real large volumes, but as AMD don't have volume to sell then their high pricing strategy kind of makes sense.
P.S. Though the 390 is exceptionally priced and selling incredibly well at OcUK.
Gibbo from the 11 you sold on launch , how many fury have sold now?
THIS.
It's the reason I still have my 2 290's... even playing at 4K I (almost) max everything out at 60 FPS. Do I really want to pay £600 to upgrade to a solution that allows me to turn AA from 2x to 4x? LOL NO.
390/X seem to clock way better, I would consider an upgrade given that my second card is a **** clocker (only 1050 on the core at stock), but then I would have to swap out my other 290 too which is far better (1100 at stock volts, atm sitting at 1050 at -37 on core lol)... not TOO big of a problem but still we are talking a couple hundred £ just to be able to overclock 10% more.
Last edited:
