0
1

[–] IAMA_Plumber-AMA 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

wccftech...

Yeaaahhhh... I'm gonna wait for official AMD confirmation on that one.

0
1

[–] Spiritreader 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's a really interesting card for me it seems.

Now, although these are just rumors, 175W with estimated 7.3 Teraflops doesn't sound very reasonable to me. It would be slightly better than a Fury, even featuring more compute / texture mapping units. The Fury would be, with 100 Watt more power consumption, completely unnecessary (Then again, there aren't much Fury models on the market, even GPU partners don't seem too interested in the Fury, so that's that).

If the Nano really is what they want us to believe, they can possibly expand that thing later on like Nvidia does with their Tis, Ti Boosts, and what not.

Nonetheless, I think this card will be placed just under the Fury instead of inbetween the FuryX, still making it an interesting choice for 1440p. (Still having 60hz 1080p monitors here :< )

Concerning the cost, I'm not the guy who likes to spend even 300 USD on a graphics card, so far I've liked AMD for its very competitive pricing. The most expensive card I've bought to date was a R9 270x. I hope they will stick to their aggresive price tag strategy for the Nano.

If it's gonna be pretty expensive, I may reconsider buying the card on release / at all.

Let's see how this will turn out in the end. I consider the Nano for myself and many others the most interesting card in their new Fiji lineup.