just a small thing noticed: last pict show the AMD Nano, with AMD ram... on an Intel platform (despite sticker have been removed)... i would have expected an AMD CPU for this pict... lol :infinity:

AMD is know there CPU is a power hog lol. Also

The SEP of the AMD Radeon™ R9 Nano graphics card will be $649 USD and is planned to be available in stores and at participating etailers the week of September 7, 2015.

Source: http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2082563 Everyone who saw the R9 Nano price $649 http://i.imgur.com/pr6skEg.gif the Rage in his eyes hahaha.

What AMD are claiming is like standing next to a shiny Ferrari without a gastank and claiming it'll do 220mph. Fiji draws 400W at 1GHz and ~8Tflops.

Yea, gosh, what an overpriced product (GPU wars are fun)...For less than a 12GB EVGA Titan-Z from nVidia for $1600, I could have 2x Fury Nanos in Crossfire, that would probably clean its clock while at the same time having almost 2x the on-board memory bandwidth--and of course be able to fit into cases where no Titan-Z dares to tread...;) Or you could spend $1,000 for one of nVidia's Titan-X's, right? (Perspective is a wonderful thing.) People are funny in their prejudices...my 4.2GHz 8-core AMD cpu TDP's at 95W...but that doesn't stop some people from talking about "how much power" AMD cpus use... Lol...;) (Ah, nothing like the Internet to endlessly promote false/misleading info, is there?) As to "who might want such product, " well, let's see...what about people who want something as powerful as a Fury in a much smaller form factor, something which also uses a good deal less power...? And the thing is, looking at it another way, you can now buy a FuryX for the same price as a Fury Nano...not bad at all, AMD...!

What AMD are claiming is like standing next to a shiny Ferrari without a gastank and claiming it'll do 220mph. Fiji draws 400W at 1GHz and ~8Tflops.

You are wrong, Fiji does not eat 400W @1000MHz, It eats 550W at that, so quit this misinformation. And downclocking it to 900MHz pushes consumption to 650W. One has to be careful while handling it. Last time I saw article from some French professionals claiming that radiator and card gets heated over 105°C with liquid which already boils at such temperature. I would not ever advise anyone to get this overpriced, overheating, power hungry beast. [spoiler]Now, on serious note... I was joking. I think there are some Frenchman in Netherlands.[/spoiler]

Yea, gosh, what an overpriced product (GPU wars are fun)...For less than a 12GB EVGA Titan-Z from nVidia for $1600, I could have 2x Fury Nanos in Crossfire, that would probably clean its clock while at the same time having almost 2x the on-board memory bandwidth--and of course be able to fit into cases where no Titan-Z dares to tread...;) Or you could spend $1,000 for one of nVidia's Titan-X's, right? (Perspective is a wonderful thing.) People are funny in their prejudices...my 4.2GHz 8-core AMD cpu TDP's at 95W...but that doesn't stop some people from talking about "how much power" AMD cpus use... Lol...;) (Ah, nothing like the Internet to endlessly promote false/misleading info, is there?) As to "who might want such product, " well, let's see...what about people who want something as powerful as a Fury in a much smaller form factor, something which also uses a good deal less power...? And the thing is, looking at it another way, you can now buy a FuryX for the same price as a Fury Nano...not bad at all, AMD...!

Unless the Nano can match a Fury X with same settings by using far less power and cooling.....I mean they are the same GPU. Is the Nano GPU so perfectly binned.....and the Fury X has crap bins?

Unless the Nano can match a Fury X with same settings by using far less power and cooling.....I mean they are the same GPU. Is the Nano GPU so perfectly binned.....and the Fury X has crap bins?

No, Nano has base clock on GPU 850 or 900MHz with 0.95~1.00V That's enough to keep entire card in 175W limit. It may boost to 1000MHz in certain situations. Likely using similar boosting mechanisms like notebook chips. It has no way to match Fury X, not even magical binning. But due to bad decision for base HBM clock for Fury X, Nano will not suffer much from lower clock. And if they decide to boost HBM to 550MHz, they'll get optimal power efficiency for Nano.

No, Nano has base clock on GPU 850 or 900MHz with 0.95~1.00V That's enough to keep entire card in 175W limit. It may boost to 1000MHz in certain situations. Likely using similar boosting mechanisms like notebook chips. It has no way to match Fury X, not even magical binning. But due to bad decision for base HBM clock for Fury X, Nano will not suffer much from lower clock. And if they decide to boost HBM to 550MHz, they'll get optimal power efficiency for Nano.

I guess we will see when real numbers come out.

The price/performance ratio with this one is definitely pretty bad when compared to other ITX cards. If it really end up costing the same as Fury X then it would be over 2x pricier than, say, Gigabyte GTX 970 ITX (when overclocked it's almost as fast as GTX 980).

The price/performance ratio with this one is definitely pretty bad when compared to other ITX cards. If it really end up costing the same as Fury X then it would be over 2x pricier than, say, Gigabyte GTX 970 ITX (it even had quiet a bit of OC headroom left which narrows the gap down).

Yup, you can buy two 970 ITX for SLI mode at the same price as a R9 Nano & it destroy in any game. AMD just dig there own hole for there own grave today. everyone online is piss that AMD did this. we going to see a lot of sells of the R9 390 selling today. if it was not for the LG 29UM67 Freesync 21:9 monitor I buy a 980 right now.

Yup, you can buy two 970 ITX for SLI mode at the same price as a R9 Nano & it destroy in any game. AMD just dig there own hole for there own grave today. everyone online is piss that AMD did this. we going to see a lot of sells of the R9 390 selling today. if it was not for the LG 29UM67 Freesync 21:9 monitor I buy a 980 right now.

I'm not pissed...The Fury non X lives....It will not throttle on demanding games as the Nano will. I have a big case and it fits perfectly with room to spare.

I was looking forward to buying one, then i saw the price an i was like... http://i.imgur.com/AogvY.jpg Off to nvidia then. AMD you are seriously starting to suck, and yes, i am an amd fan.

I was looking forward to buying one, then i saw the price an i was like... [spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/AogvY.jpg[/spoiler] Off to nvidia then. AMD you are seriously starring to suck, and yes, i am an amd fan.

Same here, I like AMD & NVidia but sometimes both sides piss me off sometimes. My credit card is save today or is it.

Yup, you can buy two 970 ITX for SLI mode at the same price as a R9 Nano & it destroy in any game.

My OC'd HD7950s in CFX destroy any single card currently being sold. Reason why I have no plans on upgrading any time soon.

Vapor chamber cooling? Nice this must be their hand picked chips if they can get that much power with the the stream processors enabled in a small form factor and a good amount less gotage to hit 175w with a single PCIE connector. Seems almost too good to be true.

Supposed to be loads of these ready to go. a great supply.

My OC'd HD7950s in CFX destroy any single card currently being sold. Reason why I have no plans on upgrading any time soon.

Not titan x or 980ti.

Yea, gosh, what an overpriced product (GPU wars are fun)...For less than a 12GB EVGA Titan-Z from nVidia for $1600, I could have 2x Fury Nanos in Crossfire, that would probably clean its clock while at the same time having almost 2x the on-board memory bandwidth--and of course be able to fit into cases where no Titan-Z dares to tread...;) Or you could spend $1,000 for one of nVidia's Titan-X's, right? (Perspective is a wonderful thing.) People are funny in their prejudices...my 4.2GHz 8-core AMD cpu TDP's at 95W...but that doesn't stop some people from talking about "how much power" AMD cpus use... Lol...;) (Ah, nothing like the Internet to endlessly promote false/misleading info, is there?) As to "who might want such product, " well, let's see...what about people who want something as powerful as a Fury in a much smaller form factor, something which also uses a good deal less power...? And the thing is, looking at it another way, you can now buy a FuryX for the same price as a Fury Nano...not bad at all, AMD...!

Your perspective is obscured and you're prejudice by your comment. Form factor is irrelevant. Lets stop pretending like it is all of a sudden. The fury could easily be dealt if choosing to go htpc. And theres no ways this card is worth the price or what it cost them to manufacture. Its also irrelevant what you could get vs the titan or the nano. They're both a rip off. The issue here is the rumored cost. Even if the nano in crossfire could blitz the titan, id still not spend the money even if i had it, especially when i could get two 390s or (since everyone is waving the form factor flag all of a sudden) two mini 970s and have the perfect power vs cost setup. I mean, $1300 (2x nano) or $1600(titan) for what, to play console ports at 4k. Lol. Then theres driver support, 970 sli will get far more support than the anything from amd and id happily pay the extra for a titan as at least i know the card is going to have an absolutely ridiculous life span due to the driver support from Nvidia. Then theres airflow. Even if one is slightly cooler that the other under load, which would be smarter to go for? A nano dumping heat into the case vs the competition that dumps it out the back? If you are going small form factor, this is going to make a big difference. Besides, who buys a case and then chooses the components based on that cases size. Poor planning is what that is. More so if performance is important. Anyone who cares about performance could careless about size.

I don't see why everyone is comparing this to the 980 Ti or Fury (X). This is in a completely different form factor (and yes that counts), its only competition is the GTX 970. So now you have two different cards to choose from (high-end) for ITX factor: GTX 970 and Fury Nano. GTX 970 will probably offer a far greater bang for the buck (ironically) and better driver support (especially for Steam machines if they ever take off). The Fury Nano will probably be faster though it will cost you a lot more; but you have that option open to you. And O/C is not a valid point in my opinion when it comes to thermally constrained ITX boxes with often not the best power supplies, which somewhat constricts the GTX 970 further in this comparison; unlike the GTX 980 vs. Fury. I really don't see a problem with the Nano's price. They could've priced it at $800 and I wouldn't see a problem; it doesn't have any competition. Furthermore, these are limited supply binned parts, exotic cooler, etc. When Nvidia's partners launch a 980 or 980 Ti ITX, then we'll talk. Right now you have no other option in this format for this performance level (if it performs as touted).

I suppose that is very true, this is essentially AMD doing what Nvidia do and pricing this at whatever they have to as it's easily the fastest card in it's class, so has no competition. AMD fans just have to be ok with the fact they will have to behave like Nvidia if they want to survive. I don't think AMD misled anyone with this either, i don't think they ever suggested this would be a mid-range card, it looks like people saw lower TDP and assumed this meant mid-range card, so if this is $650 they can't blame AMD for it.

Since when did AMD ever care about form factor. They've done nothing but release monstrosity of cards since the 3/4xxxx series. If form factor is contributing to the cards cost, this makes even less sense. Who are they aim this card at? The 3 blokes in Arizona and their friend steve from canada? Its not like amd needs the support 🙄. They could have made this a normal form factor card, sell it for less and made more in sales. This company is a joke.