• 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

r7slayer said:
Gibbo is right on the ball its slightly faster than a 390x but slower than fury pro.
Click to expand...

No way, as i said, the Fury pro overclocked to 1040, is only around par with the 390X, the Nanos rumoured to be only clocked around 860, so it'll be smashed off the 390X!.
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
No way, as i said, the Fury pro overclocked to 1040, is only around par with the 390X, the Nanos rumoured to be only clocked around 860, so it'll be smashed off the 390X!.
Click to expand...

Seriously man check some more reviews, its not "only around par", just because one website has some results that show it being similar in some cases doesnt mean that an overclocked version is only around par, ESPECIALLY at higher resolutions.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84512-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r9-fury-strix-review,1.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review.html
 
Last edited:
Meladath said:
Seriously man check some more reviews, its not "only around par", just because one website has some results that show it being similar in some cases doesnt mean that an overclocked version is only around par, ESPECIALLY at higher resolutions.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84512-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r9-fury-strix-review,1.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review.html
Click to expand...

As i said, ive seen all the reviews, and thats why i said they don't make sense, as its all the experts on here that say its 'only around par', not those, the only reviews that agree with those on here, are the [H] ones.
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
As i said, ive seen all the reviews, and thats why i said they don't make sense, as its all the experts on here that say its 'only around par', not those, the only reviews that agree with those on here, are the [H] ones.
Click to expand...

I am so confused...
Are you saying that people on the OCuk forums are saying the FX competes with the 980 and the fury is only about on par as the 390X? despite most reviews saying otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Meladath said:
I am so confused...
Are you saying that people on the OCuk forums are saying the FX competes with the 980 and its only about on par as the 390X? despite most reviews saying otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yes, they've been saying it since the FX reviews came out (except [H] who agreed), and why they are saying their pricing is all wrong, and needs to be much lower, and its the Fury non X that everyone is saying is around par with the 390s (along with [H]), so their pricing is also wrong, it too needs to be much lower.

They can't be £100+ more than the cards they are competing with, like everyone says, as you'll either buy a 390/980, or a Ti, which is also now cheaper than the FX, for similar, better performance.
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
Yes, they've been saying it since the FX reviews came out (except [H] who agreed), and why they are saying their pricing is all wrong, and needs to be much lower, and its the Fury non X that everyone is saying is around par with the 390s (along with [H]), so their pricing is also wrong, it too needs to be much lower.
Click to expand...

I think what people have meant is that the Fury non-X competes with the980 on a price-performance margin. The Fury is a tiny bit faster faster but also more expensive. Therefore for a lot of people, especially those on 100P, a 980 or 390X is a good alternative savings some cash. Alternatively if cash is less of an issue hen it makes sense to chip in a little more and get a 980Ti.

If you draw a bang-for-buck line form the 980 to the 980Ti the Fury is priced between them but falls the wrong side of that line. The Fury just has to slide at least 70-80 quid to the left and then it pops to the good side of the trend line.
 
Oh right... I see what you mean though.

It's not like you either have money or you don't though, some people might have enough for a Fury and not a 980Ti though.

The 980Ti isn't that much faster than a Fury really, ESPECIALLY if you are going for 4K and a multi GPU setup, at that point the Furies would most likely make more sense just because they are cheapest and crossfire scales better than SLI in a way to make 2 furies vs 2 980Ti's incredibly close...

As of right now the only bonus I see with a 980Ti personally is that it overclocks better. Hopefully voltage will help the fury be pushed far but who knows. At lower resolutions though the 980Ti is way faster due to less driver overhead.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
As i said, ive seen all the reviews, and thats why i said they don't make sense, as its all the experts on here that say its 'only around par', not those, the only reviews that agree with those on here, are the [H] ones.
Click to expand...

If by experts you mean you, repeatedly, then sure. A couple of the regular trolls also slated the performance giving no evidence which I'd hardly view as 'expert'. While not every post needs links to actual results or whatever it's still worth considering your sources :p
 
humbug said:
390's better.
Click to expand...

That may well be but that is like me saying "The 980 is better than the Nano" (which I expect it will be). If it was as fast as a Fury X, then fair but it won't be and it will be closer to a 970 but with HBM, so I am not sure on why the fuss over this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom