Am I the only one who seriously doubts AMD's claims on 8.2 TFLOPs peformance for the Nano, vs 7.2 TFLOPs for the Fury non-X?
Both are running at the same "max" boost clock of 1GHz, and the Nano is fully unlocked just like the Fury X.
All while using that tiny 10-15mm thick radial fan, while being super quiet???
Let's see AMD cross their fingers so hard that most GPU review sites will only run very short benchmarks when the GPU is already cool (just so that it will beat 290X let alone 390X - AMD is only claiming it to beat 290X instead of 390X). In fact, I'm already seeing blisters on AMD's fingers from being crossed too hard. All for $649.
Both are running at the same "max" boost clock of 1GHz, and the Nano is fully unlocked just like the Fury X.
All while using that tiny 10-15mm thick radial fan, while being super quiet???
Let's see AMD cross their fingers so hard that most GPU review sites will only run very short benchmarks when the GPU is already cool (just so that it will beat 290X let alone 390X - AMD is only claiming it to beat 290X instead of 390X). In fact, I'm already seeing blisters on AMD's fingers from being crossed too hard. All for $649.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws... 