Nope. Fury X has water and a triple slot air cooler as an option. Fury has a cut core count and an air cooler. There's probably clock differences also.
Oh i see. Nevertheless both Fury and Fury X should outperform 390X by a large margin, thats whats matter. Btw, what about Nano? Even more cut down Fiji?
The Nano is a bit of a wild card in my opinion, the power draw and performance figures don't quite add up for me, that and it's absolutely tiny. I'm more interested in how it'll turn out than anything else AMD is bringing out tbh.
That is yet to be seen but considering the 175W TDP I would expect it to be. I would think 390X performance at half the wattage was the report.
Fury has less shaders, a bit like the 290 vs 290x. Nano should be based on the same chip as the Fury but why such a low TDP compared?
The Nano I bet is a 2800+ shader Fiji. Something close/better to the 290x, but with almost half the thermals required to run it. A good place to be for AMD, since the huge Fiji chips will naturally have smaller yields for the big chip. I believe that the reason they launch it on Autumn is because they don't want to lose non-defective chips for the Nano, and that would give them time to have an inventory of defective ones.
My best bet: Fiji uses same manufacturing method as Carrizo APU. Nano is Fiji (Cut down Fiji XT, same as Fury). But runs at 800MHz only. So, sacrificing 20% clock to reduce power consumption by 50%. That is reasonable scenario. Clocking cur down Fiji 20% down will put it around 290x/390x performance, so it would fit statement from presentation.
Just wait for fury-x price gouging to end, by then drivers should be ready for fury-x. Right now oc gtx 980 non ti can beat fury-x at overclock settings https://youtu.be/iEwLtqbBw90
The chip is huge, so I would bet more on laser-cut defective larger Fiji, than downclocking. It means they can use many more chips that would have been discarded otherwise.
