Tech General Chat

[TheMcSame]

Well, $369 (970) vs $649 (Nano). Which will take the lead? I myself would go and spend the $369 instead of $649.

Tbh I have doubts about the legitimacy of that figure if it's being compared to the 970. If it really is there to compete with the 970 then it wont cost that much, simply because AMD can't afford to do that.

 

I mean, the way that they're releasing it would imply that it should compete with the 970... Though if it is a mini fury x ("Fury X Nano" would make more sense), the price is spot on.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't tend to follow AMD tbh, they don't do things the normal way, especially the way they name some of their stuff.

[SilverRST]

 

Well, $369 (970) vs $649 (Nano). Which will take the lead? I myself would go and spend the $369 instead of $649.

Tbh I have doubts about the legitimacy of that figure if it's being compared to the 970. If it really is there to compete with the 970 then it wont cost that much, simply because AMD can't afford to do that.

 

I mean, the way that they're releasing it would imply that it should compete with the 970... Though if it is a mini fury x ("Fury X Nano" would make more sense), the price is spot on.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't tend to follow AMD tbh, they don't do things the normal way, especially the way they name some of their stuff.

 

What really grinds my gears is, why and what in the world is AMD thinking they are doing. The Nano is basically a Fury X without a big radiator and a waterpump.

And yet they claim the Nano is 30% faster than the 290X, which is by now already 2 years old. I just simply don't get it. The Nano has all 4096 shader cores.

Really, AMD seriously lack management and that's exactly what made them getting in to troubles.

And the Fury non X has 3584 shader cores and it comes with 3 fans. I thought it should be the other way around?

Edited September 2, 2015 by SilverRST

[Kampret]

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

[SilverRST]

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

[Andreaz1]

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

They claim it's 30% faster than the 970, not the 980.

[Kampret]

 

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

 

 

They'd need to develop GCN 2.0 for that. GCN 1.x shaders performance are about as proportional as Kepler's.

[SilverRST]

 

 

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

 

 

They'd need to develop GCN 2.0 for that. GCN 1.x shaders performance are about as proportional as Kepler's.

 

GCN 1.x shaders performance proprtional as Kepler's? AMD is shooting themself in the foot for asking such a high price.

 

@Andreaz1, 30% faster than the 970? Not 980? Or not the 980Ti?? Man, things aren't looking good for AMD.

[Andreaz1]

 

 

 

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

 

They'd need to develop GCN 2.0 for that. GCN 1.x shaders performance are about as proportional as Kepler's.

 

GCN 1.x shaders performance proprtional as Kepler's? AMD is shooting themself in the foot for asking such a high price.

 

@Andreaz1, 30% faster than the 970? Not 980? Or not the 980Ti?? Man, things aren't looking good for AMD.

 

http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/bild/36705?l=eyJyZXNvdXJjZSI6IlwvYXJ0aWtlbFwvYmlsZFwvMzY3MDUiLCJmaWx0ZXJzIjpbIndtIiwidD1vcmlnaW5hbCJdLCJwYXJhbXMiOltdLCJrZXkiOiIxYWQ1YTcxMDg1MjlhMTcyMDE0Nzg4NTNhMjhlZDU0OCJ9

 

970. Not 980. Not 980 Ti.

[Kampret]

 

 

 

TBH I was kinda hoping for a 2816 shaders Fiji LE priced at $380 as a R9 Nano.

Too bad the AMD shaders cores aren't as powerfull as nVidia's lesser amount of shader cores.

For an example, if it's true R9 Nano is slightly faster or 30% faster than GTX980, then it's bad. 4096 AMD shaders vs 2048 nVidia shader cores.

 

 

They'd need to develop GCN 2.0 for that. GCN 1.x shaders performance are about as proportional as Kepler's.

 

GCN 1.x shaders performance proprtional as Kepler's? AMD is shooting themself in the foot for asking such a high price.

 

 

 

 

*about as proportional*. Kepler is a bit more efficient on performance per shader count, not by much though. 2816 SP on 290X and 2880 CUDA on 780 Ti, both performs quite similarly with 290X trailing the 780 Ti by a *very* close margin.

[Kampret]

Oh I almost forgot. 8-pin PCIe aux connectors supply up to 225 W, yes? What would happen if someone increases the power limit on the R9 Nano? Considering it's pretty close to a regular Fury.

[TheMcSame]

Oh I almost forgot. 8-pin PCIe aux connectors supply up to 225 W, yes?

Can't remember the figures off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it's something along the lines of:

 

PCIe (from the board) - 75W

6 Pin PCIe - 75W

8 Pin PCIe - 150W

Edited September 7, 2015 by TheMcSame

[Andreaz1]

AMD won't allow board partners to increase the TDP of the card if that's what you mean. They will only be allowed to design their own cooling solutions for it.

[Kampret]

AMD won't allow board partners to increase the TDP of the card if that's what you mean. They will only be allowed to design their own cooling solutions for it.

 

I am not talking about board partners, I'm talking about Power Limit-based overclocking, be it via AB or CCC.

[Flachbau]

Anyone here have a Lumia 640? My dad just ordered one online, and it looks pretty dope honestly. I remember wanting to get one myself but I just never got around to it.

[Red Hat]

I wanted to get a Lumia 640 myself, then realized that Microsoft is gonna release LTE devices with Windows 10 out of the box once Windiws Phone 10 gets released.

[TheMcSame]

So there's a little rumour going around that AMD is going to receive a capital injection from a company called Silver Lake (a company that has heavily invested in companies like Dell and Motorola). That's not all though, early rumours made it out that Intel would be investing in AMD. So if Silver Lake does invest in AMD then it could be very likely that Intel had a part in that decision (as keeping AMD afloat is in Intel's best interests).

[Kampret]

Oh my god I don't know whether to love or hate AMD's GPU performance between resolutions. I simply hate how Fury X loses to a freakin 980 at 1080p, but managed to match and/or exceed a 980 Ti at 4K.

 

 

[SilverRST]

Here in EU the Nano costs €799. Way too f*cking expensive.

[TheMcSame]

Fury X - £504

NANO - £575 (only found one from MSI at overclockers)

 

Less is more... Literally.

[Reformed Squid]

(as keeping AMD afloat is in Intel's best interests).

But how? Without AMD, Intel would have the whole market to themselves and wouldn't need to innovate at all if they didn't want to...

[TheMcSame]

Intel would have the whole market to themselves

^^^^

That's why. US antitrust laws outlaw monopolization. The Sherman Act I think.

Edited September 12, 2015 by TheMcSame

[Vik]

What do you guys find better : Chrome or Firefox?

 

Chrome has been consuming alot of RAM recently and I found Firefox to be a decent alternative so far.Just looking for a few opinions before I make my final push.

[Flachbau]

Chrome is supposed to receive an update soon to crack down on the RAM issues. Not sure if it's out soon but I would try it out first before switching.

 

Firefox is pretty much like Chrome but it just looks different.

[gooeyhole]

I'm using Firefox right now. What's the better alternative version, Waterfox or Nightly? I've used both but only briefly and I'd like to know what you guys think.

[Andreaz1]

Here in EU the Nano costs €799. Way too f*cking expensive.

Maybe it does where you live, here it's about €690 which is cheaper but still way too expensive.

 

What do you guys find better : Chrome or Firefox?

 

Chrome has been consuming alot of RAM recently and I found Firefox to be a decent alternative so far.Just looking for a few opinions before I make my final push.

I use Firefox. Not necessarily because I find it better but because I like it and I don't want the RAM issues that Chrome has.

[SilverRST]

Firefox all the way. Google Chrome went to sh*t and they also made Adblock useless.

 

AMD delayed ZEN to late 2016 so we consumers probabyl would have it in 2017. (If AMD manages to stay alive untill then)

And so much rumors like Microsoft interested to buy AMD. It would be f*ckery all over if that actually will happen.

Microsoft would be only making APU/GPU's only for their Xbox.

[TheMcSame]

That consistency though... Puts Samsung's offering to shame. Both using the same adapter.

 

Left - Samsung Evo 64GB MicroSD

Right - SanDisk Ultra 64GB MicroSD

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by TheMcSame

[Straypuft]

Firefox all the way. Google Chrome went to sh*t and they also made Adblock useless.

 

AMD delayed ZEN to late 2016 so we consumers probabyl would have it in 2017. (If AMD manages to stay alive untill then)

And so much rumors like Microsoft interested to buy AMD. It would be f*ckery all over if that actually will happen.

Microsoft would be only making APU/GPU's only for their Xbox.

adblock still works on my chrome most of the time

[TheMcSame]

That consistency though... Puts Samsung's offering to shame. Both using the same adapter.

 

Left - Samsung Evo 64GB MicroSD

Right - SanDisk Ultra 64GB MicroSD

 

Just a little update on this... I may have f*cked up slightly

 

I presumed that the USB reader was USB 3.0... Well.... It isn't. It's 2.0. That's why the cards weren't hitting anything over 40MB/s (which I presume is the actual bandwidth USB 2.0 can push out)... I thought something was a bit off with the speeds.

 

Although, it's not 100% bad, it still shows us that SanDisk's offering managed to keep the speeds up much better than Samsung's offering. Anyway, I don't have a 3.0 reader... So... Yeah.

Edited September 14, 2015 by TheMcSame

[Kampret]

 

That consistency though... Puts Samsung's offering to shame. Both using the same adapter.

 

Left - Samsung Evo 64GB MicroSD

Right - SanDisk Ultra 64GB MicroSD

 

Just a little update on this... I may have f*cked up slightly

 

I presumed that the USB reader was USB 3.0... Well.... It isn't. It's 2.0. That's why the cards weren't hitting anything over 40MB/s (which I presume is the actual bandwidth USB 2.0 can push out)... I thought something was a bit off with the speeds.

 

Although, it's not 100% bad, it still shows us that SanDisk's offering managed to keep the speeds up much better than Samsung's offering. Anyway, I don't have a 3.0 reader... So... Yeah.

 

 

Yeah, USB 2.0 topped out at around 35 MB/s.

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Super-Multi-Card-Reader-TS-RDF8K/dp/B0056TYRMW

That'd be useful.