Yeah, but like this your mainstream line-up (the one that most people are actually buying) is nice and available up to the 390x, while the "boutique cards" are there to look nice in benchmarks and improve your image.
I'd wait for proper benchmarks on that, it might thermal throttle down to 700MHz, in which case it'll certainly not beat a Fury.
I'd wait on some people to actually test it before saying that. I really doubt your theory also.
I doubt they would. i don't think 649 is anywhere near the margin or they'd sell the card for much more.
The price point makes since to me since the card is basically a low power Fury X from what I read in the Tom's Hardware article. The article stated that AMD noted that the card would be overclockable by increasing the power limit so it hits 1000mhz in every application making it basically a Fury X. But these chips are picked for their power efficiency so they should be able to maintain 1000mhz at less power draw than the regular Fury X. They also stated that AMD is working with water block manufactures for custom water blocks.
So, if they made the nano cheaper than the Fury X, it would make the X irrelevant. Why would you pay more for a card with a bulky rad when you could have a more compact, efficient card capable of similar performance with a little tweaking? If anything, the Fury X should drop to $600 and the Nano should stay at the $650 mark.
Even as a proof-of-concept product, I think this is an interesting release, and I can't wait to see benchmarks with it. I don't expect anything ground-breaking, I just want to see how well the design holds up.
Oddly enough, the think I find most fascinating about this is that the cooler looks to be based off of the Sapphire R9 285 ITX Compact cooler, with some modifications, of course.
