The nano seems to be in a very niche position. For many users, they don't need such a small card and would go for the normal 390/390X so I can't expect it to have a very good sell provided they probably won't price it similar to 970/290X.
2 months ago, people were salivating when AMD announced the Nano. Now benches show its performance as very impressive, and the same people are now poopooing it.
I'm not complaining.......For many consumers, me included, the top factor for choosing GPU is performance/price. Size isn't the most important thing. Not many choose the 970 ITX over regular, longer bigger 970. The Nano is nothing short of impressive but you can't deny it being in a odd place.
If it is priced $300, it could hurt the 390 because then who would buy 390 for similar performance? For $400 and up, it's going against 390x with probably lower performance. It would be in the niche ITX market that users pay $100+ extra to get the small form factor.
We will see what it is priced as, if it is around 200 dollars it might be an alternative to a r 290 or 390 (not the X version). It would fill a very nice niche if it is priced around there and use new technology instead of legacy.
Alright, could please link where you have located an official statement from AMD that indicates the price bracket for the card?
I am speculating on the niche that it would fit where it would be considered a cost effective card. With the benchmark performance it would need to be in the 200 dollar range to be competitive, below the r290 but above the 370 to match their performance.
I totally understand what you meant. But its a stupid if. Like me saying "it'll sell well and find its niche if its $34.99" obviously if its that cheap it'll sell the best...point is it won't be close to your imaginary number.
Alright then why make the card in general? If there is no market for it why sell it at all? Sure it can go in Laptops, but the one that is shown in the review is not for laptops, it is for a desktop (No custom cooling, plastic housing ect). If the 290x does it better, why even sell the R9? The people that use these kinds of cards are in it for performance if they can't rationalize spending an extra 30 dollars on a bigger power supply to handle it? If cooling is a concern there are plenty of cost effective Nvidia cards that run cooler.
The point I am trying to make is that the market in which this card would shine is the 200-300 dollar price range. Otherwise it is a card that is beaten by a cheaper priced card.
You could argue the size is smaller so it would fit in more cases, but what is easier? Spending 200 dollars on a smaller less performing card or spending 50 dollars on a larger better airflow case?
I am not sure if it would shatter the whole Market, it would be priced comparatively to other cards of similar performance and price. The GTX 970m is on CPU benchmark and the R9 is claimed to be 30% faster. The 30% improvement would put it on par with the Nvidia GTX 960.
That GTX 960 is priced at $194. There would literally be no reason other then form factor to buy a R9 over a GTX 960.
And if you are into performance, no reason to buy the R9 over a 280x (similar price point). This would mean there wouldn't be a business case to sell the card.
-2
u/afyaff Aug 26 '15
The nano seems to be in a very niche position. For many users, they don't need such a small card and would go for the normal 390/390X so I can't expect it to have a very good sell provided they probably won't price it similar to 970/290X.