AMD has released information on the new Radeon R9 Nano. This may be a 6" video card, but you'll be surprised what lies in wait under the hood. Today is just a paper launch as is AMD's new habit. We are able to share specifications, photographs, pricing and availability only.
So far, three major hardware review sites have been denied the R9 Nano for review.
1) HardOCP
2) TechReport
3) TechPowerUp
I initially thought the refusal to allow KitGuru a review sample was justified, b/c of the rather ridiculous pre-launch rant handled by one of their non-GPU reviewers on staff. (For me, I had never heard of this UK-based review site until the story broke of how AMD refused KG a FuryX for review.)
However this time the story is different. The review sites we’re talking about are top-tier and tend to dominate viewer traffic. [H]ardOCP, TR, and TPU have been the premiere destinations for launch reviews and AMD’s refusal to give *any* of these websites a sample to review is building a dangerously negative narrative for AMD.
The timing is terrible too, considering the locomotive of positive groundswell created by the AoTS benchmark, and subsequent stream of information by Oxide representative, Kollock, who is posting on the OCN forum. Mahigan, a former OCN user, has also been active in sustaining this disruptive conversation on nVidia and its *anticipated* performance in DX12.
This is also resting purely on the numbers and “async” narrative that has been running the past two weeks.
I think AMD is playing a dangerous game, winning on one front (AoTS narrative) while losing terribly on the publicity front of the R9 Nano.
Not a good start AMD and poorly executed on all counts.
*Note - playing Devil’s advocate, yes, Fury and its derivates are poor values in DX11. TR’s 99th percentile FPS graph lays this out very clearly. Even with that in mind though, AMD should not be biting the hand that feeds it.
