LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPC Gamer are saying AMD released the price as $650: http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-r9-nano-c...ember-for-650/
Not for me then.
PC Gamer are saying AMD released the price as $650: http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-r9-nano-c...ember-for-650/
Not for me then.
This will flop more then a gang of weiners
Another miss by AMD on the pricing. At this rate they'll be hitting 10% marketshare in no time....
Sounds optimisticOriginally Posted by [jF]
Another miss by AMD on the pricing. At this rate they'll be hitting 10% marketshare in no time....
There's no listed price...
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
On this site...
I think something that people might have missed, is that this is a the cream of the Fury X gpu silicon, hence why such a drop in TDP. If you slap a watercooler on it, you will be into much better OC territory no?
No.
It's normal Fury X silicon, just down-clocked.
But not downclocked by 64%. He's right, either the Nano has choice silicon with boatloads of over-clocking headroom, or the numbers really don't add up.
Why would you have to downclock by 64%? The last 5-10% of frequency headroom usually means increasing voltage to maintain stability. Power draw is a relation of freq x square of voltage x transistors gating so just dropping clocks a bit into more easily stable territory, dropping volts as a result, means a much lower power draw.
Thats a good point, the Nano could pull over 225w. A 225w Fury with 2x performance of Hawaii could be very fast.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote