General Gaming Article |
- Nvidia Compares Shield to the New Apple TV
- Newegg Daily Deals: HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB HDD, SanDisk 128GB SSD, and More!
- Gigabyte Unveils Xtreme Gaming GeForce GTX 950 for Overclockers
- Alienware's "Badass" Laptop Upgrade Offer Could Thwart Buyer's Remorse
- Microsoft Secretly Downloading Windows 10 on All PCs?
- EVGA Announces Dual BIOS GeForce GTX 980 Ti FTW Edition Graphics Card
- Microsoft to Release Office 2016 on September 22
- AMD R9 Nano Review
| Nvidia Compares Shield to the New Apple TV Posted: 10 Sep 2015 02:49 PM PDT For several years now, we've heard unnamed insiders talk about Apple's so-called "iTV" project and how it will revolutionize the way we consume movies and television. While the company didn't launch an actual HDTV on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook did echo a lot of what we've heard regarding the iTV project, such as the company wanting to fix the broken television market. That said, Apple's 2015 model of the Apple TV unit is more than a set-top box with a number of installed apps. Customers can finally play games on the device and search for their favorite movie or TV show by providing voice commands to Siri. Even more, the provided remote includes a touch surface and motion-sensing technology for apps and games. It's the company's best Apple TV yet, but it's not alone in the set-top box market. Nvidia updated its blog on Thursday with a sheet that compares the Shield set-top box (which was launched back in May) to similar products that are on the market, including Apple's new set-top box, the Nexus Player, Amazon Fire TV, Roku 3, and the 2012 version of Apple TV. The chart shows that Nvidia's solution beats the competition in cases like console-class games, game streaming from a PC, 4K Ultra HD video playback, and more. Nvidia's blog focuses on several aspects that make the Shield set-top box a great value for the money. For starters, the device comes bundled with an actual game controller, which provides "great responsiveness" thanks to Wi-Fi Direct connectivity. The Shield also provides access to Nvidia's GRID-based cloud gaming service, which features over 50 PC games like Batman: Arkham Origins, LEGO Marvel Super Heroes, Ultra Street Fighter IV, and loads more. "Own a 4K television? Thinking of making the upgrade? You're not alone," says Nvidia's blog. "By 2018, consumers will own more than 100 million ultra-high definition 4K TVs. And SHIELD remains the only media streamer that supports 4K content. There's plenty of content already available—from both Netflix and YouTube—and plenty more coming." On a hardware level, the Shield set-top box includes a 64-bit quad-core chip, 3GB of RAM, and 16GB or 500GB of internal storage. The box also provides gigabit Ethernet, Wireless AC connectivity, a microSD card slot, HDMI 2.0, and two USB 3.0 ports. By comparison, Apple's new box includes a 64-bit dual-core SoC, 2GB of RAM, 32GB or 64GB of internal storage, an Ethernet port, and HDMI 1.4. There's no microSD card slot, no USB 3.0 ports, and no bundled game controller. Nvidia's blog also points out that the Android TV-based Shield has a built-in Chromecast device, meaning users with an Android or iOS device can "fling" their favorite media to the set-top box. Even more, there are a huge number of Android games on Google Play that cater to Nvidia's processors, ranging from the low-end Tegra 3 to the more recent Tegra X1 monster. "Android gives developers access to powerful capabilities," Nvidia writes. "For example, Shield uses Google Voice with cross-app search. That lets you quickly access content using the SHIELD remote and Shield controller. Simply use Google Voice to give commands, like 'Launch Netflix.' Just like on your Android phone." So, what about the price? The 16GB version of Shield costs $200, while the 500GB model costs a heftier $300. As for Apple TV, models will start at $150. So, Apple may have Nvidia beat regarding price. We shall see. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Newegg Daily Deals: HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB HDD, SanDisk 128GB SSD, and More! Posted: 10 Sep 2015 12:10 PM PDT Top Deal: You can store your data in the cloud, but what happens when your Internet connection takes a dump? Or your file hosting service is hacked? Or the data center is hit with lightning and goes offline? Or, or, or (the list goes on). That's when you'll be glad you setup a local NAS box. You did, right? If that's something that's on your to-do list, you might want be interested in today's top deal for an HGST Deskstar NAS 4TB Hard Drive for $150 with free shipping (normally $179 - use coupon code: [ESCAXKA73]). This 3.5-inch HDD features a 6Gbps SATA interface, 7,200 RPM spindle speed, 64MB of cache, and 1M MTBF rating. Other Deals: Corsair CX series CX750M 750W 80 Plus Bronze Power Supply for $75 with $3 shipping (normally $80 - use coupon code: [EMCAXKA23]; additional $20 Mail-in rebate) SanDisk Z400s SD8SBAT 128GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive + Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB for $83 with free shipping (normally $96) EVGA GeForce GTX 960 4GB 128-Bit GDDR5 Video Card for $230 with free shipping (normally $250; additional $20 Mail-in rebate) G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 Desktop Memory for $77 with free shipping (normally $85) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gigabyte Unveils Xtreme Gaming GeForce GTX 950 for Overclockers Posted: 10 Sep 2015 11:53 AM PDT Coated to protect against moisture Buying a graphics card isn't always easy. First you have to figure out what level of performance you're after and how much you can spend, which will hopefully narrow your choices down to two or three graphics card series. Then you have to choose one, select a manufacturer, and sort through the available options. If you decided on an Nvidia GeForce GTX 950 card (a solid offering for the money -- check out our review), one of the many options at your disposable is Gigabyte's new Xtreme Gaming GeForce GTX 950 with overclocked specs. Gigabyte says the GPUs it uses for its newest card are "top-notch" and selected using the company's "own GPU Gauntlet Sorting technology." We're not sure if that means they're cherry picked or not, though it sure does sound fancy. What we do know is that it comes overclocked. Gigabyte gooses the GPU's base and boost clocks to 1,203MHz and 1,405MHz, respectively, up from 1,026MHz and 1,190MHz. The company also revs up the 2GB of onboard GDDR5 memory (128-bit bus) to 7,000MHz, up from 6,600MHz. Cooling is handled by Gigabyte's Windforce 2X cooling solution with pure copper heat pipes that make direct contact with the GPU and dual fans with a "unique" blades that sport a triangle design at the edge. Gigabyte states there's a special breathable "aerospace-grade coating" applied to the card's PCB to protect against moisture, dust, and corrosion. According to Gigabyte, it's ideally suited for anyone living in regions with high humidity, extreme temps, or has plans to overclock using LN2 or liquid cooling. Finally, the card comes with a metal backplate. Gigabyte didn't say when the card will be available or what the asking price will be. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alienware's "Badass" Laptop Upgrade Offer Could Thwart Buyer's Remorse Posted: 10 Sep 2015 11:26 AM PDT Temporary future proofing It seems inevitable that the moment you fork over your credit card information and purchase a computer part, a new model is announced. Such is the way it goes in the fast moving world of technology, though with Intel having recently launched an army of Skylake processors, many of which are aimed at laptops, you might be hesitant to pull the trigger on a Haswell or Broadwell system. Well, it just so happens that Alienware recently rolled out new laptops built around Intel's older generation processors. To ease the sting for anyone who purchased one of those laptops (and to encourage holdouts to make the leap), Alienware will upgrade your system if Intel launches a new processor by September 28 (we'll explain this date in a moment). "Our new notebooks launched last week. If you buy one and a new CPU launches within the next 30 days, you get a free upgrade. ;) Badass," Alienware GM Frank Azor posted to his Twitter account and Alienware's Facebook page. The fine print states that the offer is valid for new Alienware 13 R2, Alienware 15 R2, and Alienware 17 R3 systems ordered between August 27 to 6AM CST September 28, 2015. Our understanding is that the 30-day period applies to the launch date, not the date you actually buy a laptop. In other words, if you bought an Alienware 13 R2 today, you'd be eligible for an upgrade if Intel launches a new CPU by September 28 and not within 30 days from now. Assuming Intel does launch a new CPU by the deadline, you'll be able to upgrade one of the aforementioned laptops to the same model with Skylake inside. It's still a bit of a gamble since Intel could release a new processor in early October and you'd be out of luck, though Alienware told Engadget it has "high confidence" Skylake will be here by the upgrade deadline. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Microsoft Secretly Downloading Windows 10 on All PCs? Posted: 10 Sep 2015 11:15 AM PDT Have you updated to Windows 10, or are you still rocking Windows 7 or Windows 8/8.1? If you're in the latter group, chances are that you already have Windows 10 stashed away on your hard drive whether you want to upgrade or not. Why? Because Microsoft wants to make the upgrade process quick and easy… if you want to upgrade, that is. "I know of two instances where people on metered connections went over their data cap for August because of this unwanted download. My own internet (slow DSL) was crawling for a week or so until I discovered this problem. In fact, that's what led me to it. Not only does it download, it tries to install every time the computer is booted," states an unnamed reader of The Inquirer. According to the source, Window 10 resides in a hidden folder labeled as "$Windows.~BT" and measures between 3.5GB to 6GB in size. While that may sound a little suspicious, a Microsoft representative confirmed that Windows 10 will indeed download for those who have chosen to receive automatic updates through Windows Update. "We help upgradable devices get ready for Windows 10 by downloading the files they'll need if they decide to upgrade," the Windows rep said. "When the upgrade is ready, the customer will be prompted to install Windows 10 on the device." But what if a device, such as a laptop, can't update to the new operating system? We've actually seen a case where Windows 10 was downloaded but not installed because Microsoft can't determine if the device is upgradable. Shouldn't that have been determined before the OS was downloaded? How will the device owner get rid of the Windows 10 image if they're not computer savvy? As The Inquirer points out, Microsoft has gotten a little trigger-happy with Windows 10, downloading the platform without notice or permission. Imagine the free space individuals with only 32GB of internal storage will have once Windows 10 sneaks onto their device. Didn't Microsoft understand why so many people rejected U2's new album that automatically downloaded through iTunes? While we applaud Microsoft for the work it's done with Windows 10, sneaking in the Windows 10 update notification on every Windows product was a little creepy. Downloading an entire OS in the background without the consumer's knowledge isn't any better. That, of course, is just an opinion. However, for the record, the Windows 10 machine used to write this article has the folder in question on drive "C" measuring 6.39GB. Windows 10 was installed using a USB drive and not through Windows Update. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EVGA Announces Dual BIOS GeForce GTX 980 Ti FTW Edition Graphics Card Posted: 10 Sep 2015 10:40 AM PDT EVGA's second fastest GeForce GTX 980 Ti EVGA just added yet another graphics card to its GeForce GTX 980 Ti line. It's the GeForce GTX 980 Ti FTW featuring the company's ACX 2.0+ cooling technology and is billed as the company's second fastest GTX 980 Ti solution next to the K|NGP|N. That brings the total number of GTX 980 Ti cards in EVGA's stable to ten. With so many cards based on the same core model, things can get confusing in a hurry, especially with EVGA's "second fastest" claim. That's technically true -- the new card boasts a base clockspeed of 1,190MHz and boost clockspeed of 1,291MHz, up from Nvidia's reference 1,000MHz/1,076MHz clocks. However, EVGA's existing GTX 980 Ti Classified features the same clockspeeds and also uses the company's ACX 2.0+ cooling setup. So, what's the difference? The Classified is actually a peg higher on the totem pole with a 14+3 power phase design compared to the FTW's 8+2 configuration, both of which are upgrades over the 6+2 design found on EVGA's lower tier GTX 980 Ti cards (including the Superclocked SKUs). According to EVGA, the 8+2 design gives the GTX 980 FTW edition an additional 25W of power headroom for overclocking. Speaking of power, they also differ in their rated maximum power draw -- 300W for the Classified and 275W for the FTW. Otherwise, they're fairly similar parts. The GTX 980 Ti FTW draws power from dual 8-pin PCI-E power inputs. It also has 6GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 7,010MHz on a 384-bit bus. Cooling is handled by a pair of double ball bearing fans with a tri-phase, six-slot motor, three 8mm straight heat pipes with a contact plate, and a memory MOSFET cooling plate. EVGA also includes a pre-installed backlate and two BIOSes to play with. The GTX 980 Ti FTW is available to purchase now direct from EVGA for $690. For the sake of comparison, the asking price for the Classified card is $700, though it's not yet available to purchase (there's an "Auto-Notify" button on EVGA's website). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Microsoft to Release Office 2016 on September 22 Posted: 10 Sep 2015 09:00 AM PDT Opening a new Office In a blog post today, Microsoft's general manager of Office 365 Technical Product Management, Julia White, confirmed earlier rumors that Office 2016 would release to the public on September 22, 2015 (two Tuesdays from now). "You may have heard the rumors, but today I'm happy to confirm that Office 2016 will be broadly available starting on September 22nd. If you have a volume licensing agreement in place, you can download Office 2016 from the Volume Licensing Service Center starting October 1st," White stated. Microsoft made available an Office 2016 IT Pro and Developer Preview back in March, followed by a Preview release to the general public in May. In the time that's passed, Microsoft's been collecting feedback and refining its productivity suite, which is nearly ready for prime time. One of the biggest feature additions Office 2016 brings to the productivity suite is co-authoring capabilities. This will allow users to see what changes are being made by other editors in real-time, assuming both are online. White also mentioned that monthly feature and security updates will roll out to customers of Office 365 ProPlus, the subscription version of Office apps for companies and organizations. It's an always up-to-date approach Microsoft is calling Current Branch. "The next Current Branch will release on September 22nd and will have all of the new Office 2016 app updates included," White said. As for pricing, Microsoft still has said how much Office 2016 will cost. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 10 Sep 2015 05:00 AM PDT At a Glance(+) Condensed Milk: Compact; quiet; tiny; efficient; did we say small? (-) Sour Milk: Expensive; not as fast as larger GPUs; 4GB VRAM; niche. Meet the AMD R9 Nano: World's Tiniest High-End GPUIf the name didn't give it away, and you haven't been paying much attention to AMD's marketing for the past month, let's just get this out of the way: the AMD Radeon R9 Nano is positively tiny! Caveat: for a really powerful GPU, and we're mostly talking about the length. The R9 Nano is still a two-slot GPU, and it's not a half-height card by any stretch of the imagination, but it is about as short as you can make a graphics card while still providing for the full x16 PCIe connection. When you first see the Nano, you'll be duly impressed: It's only six inches long, making it 0.6 inches shorter than the closest contender (Asus' DirectCU Mini GTX 970). When you pick it up, it's still somewhat heavy, checking in at 0.61kg—the Asus GTX 970 Mini weighs a similar 0.64kg, but a stock Zotac GTX 970 (the lightest high-end GPU in our labs) only weighs 0.51kg. By comparison, a full-size GTX 980 Ti tips the scales at 0.91kg, and Fury X (including the CLC) weighs 1.51 kg, though half of that is in the CLC. Regardless of how you slice it, we're still looking at a healthy reduction in overall size and weight. We've covered the specs for Nano already, but here's a recap:
The long and short of it is that Nano is the same core hardware as the Fury X, but binned for power and not necessarily pure speed. That means limitation of Fury X like the 4GB HBM are still present. The graphics card is also designed with lower power draw as a major objective, and it sports a single 8-pin PEG connector providing it with a maximum in-spec power draw of 225W. The 175W TDP is much lower than that, which means there should be a decent amount of overclocking potential. But most people are going to want to know how the Nano performs at stock, and how far it may end up dropping below its maximum 1,000MHz core clock; in our testing, it generally stays above 900MHz in most games, with occasional drops into the 850MHz range. One of the big differences between AMD and Nvidia is how they report GPU clock speeds. AMD reports a maximum turbo clock, and outside of exceptional workloads (e.g., Furmark), their GPUs should generally run at the stated turbo clock. Nvidia in contrast has an advertised base clock, which is the minimum clock speed the GPU should run at, again outside of exceptional workloads. However, Nvidia also has a Boost Clock that's a better representation of the expected minimum clock speed, and in systems with decent airflow their GPUs will almost always run at higher clocks than the advertised Boost Clock. Basically, Nvidia likes their GPU owners to feel like they're getting more than they paid for rather than coming up short. Pictures are worth a thousand words, so the above gallery just saved us a lot of typing. You can see the various promotional images AMD provided for the R9 Nano above, along with some of our own shots comparing the Nano to the standard GeForce reference blower and some other GPUs. You'll notice AMD puts a strong emphasis on the Mini-ITX aspects. Yes, the R9 Nano lives up to its name and is smaller than all of our other high-end GPUs. It's also faster than many of the larger GPUs despite its diminutive size, but we're jumping ahead. If you're interested in building a gaming PC with the highest performance per volume, a Mini-ITX system with R9 Nano makes for a perfect match. This raises a simple question: if you're not interested in building a small rig, is there any reason to consider the R9 Nano over the identically priced Fury X? The answer isn't quite so simple. The short answer is no, there's not. The longer answer is that R9 Nano should be offered in non-reference cards in the coming months. It's possible that some of those will actually be larger cards with air cooling rather than a CLC, but overclocked to perform the same as Fury X. Even if they're still small cards with R9 Nano clocks, there might be a few use cases where having multiple Nano cards is better than trying to fit multiple Fury X CLCs into a case. Regardless, use cases outside of small systems are going to be pretty niche. It's not all sunshine and roses in Mini-ITX land for the R9 Nano either. For HTPC use, R9 Nano lacks HDMI 2.0 support, something that will become increasingly important over the coming years. Many Mini-ITX cases also exist that have no trouble accommodating a larger 10-inch graphics card, and in fact the number of cases that are large enough for the Nano but not large enough for a GTX 980 Ti is quite limited. Now add in the need for a Mini-ITX PSU with an 8-pin PEG connector and at least a 400W output. Nano effectively targets a niche within a niche, but we still think it's awesome, and we're hopeful that others will run with the idea and create some new designs that were previously deemed impractical. How Fast Is the R9 Nano?And now we come to the real question. AMD says Nano is up to 30 percent faster than R9 290X and GTX 970, but at roughly twice the cost that's some seriously diminishing returns. Our own testing uses our standard test bed, which most definitely isn't a Mini-ITX build, but it helps minimize the number of variables. We've trimmed down our tests to just seven games now, along with 3DMark, but we'll be upgrading to Windows 10 and looking to add some DX12 tests in the near future. Here's what we're currently running, along with our results: The game, settings, and resolution can all have an impact on performance, and juggling those variables can certainly influence the results. We're not interested in trying to make one particular brand of GPU look better or worse, so we have our standardized results using a variety of games. What we find is that R9 Nano falls just a few percent shy of the R9 Fury, and about 11 percent behind the R9 Fury X, just as you'd expect from the clock speeds and TDP. The gap also tends to be larger at higher resolutions, which means R9 Nano has to reduce clock speeds more under heavier loads—nothing too surprising there. AMD's preview of the Nano claimed performance up to 30 percent higher than the R9 290X and GTX 970; our own testing has the 290X outperforming the GTX 970 by 12 percent on average, with the R9 Nano in turn beating 290X by 20 percent on average, and GTX 970 by 34 percent on average. Other comparisons are also worth pointing out. The Nano is only about four percent faster than the GTX 980, with almost universally worse 97 percentile frame rates (10 percent lower on average). It's also 16 percent slower than the 980 Ti on average (and manages just a single tie at 4K in Hitman), with 25 percent lower 97 percentile scores. Or if you're not as concerned with efficiency, Nano is seven percent faster than the R9 390X, 15 percent faster than the R9 390, and 75 percent faster than the R9 380 4GB (at over 3X the cost). Without talking pricing and other factors, R9 Nano looks good, and it looks great when you factor in the size of the card. But pricing has to be given some serious consideration. Like the Titan X where you're paying a huge premium for a 12GB halo product, the R9 Nano commands a large premium for its compact size. It's not too far off the pace when looking at other $500–$650 graphics cards, but the R9 Fury is slightly faster for less money if you don't care about size, and GTX 980 is very close in performance with a lower TDP and price. GTX 980 Ti meanwhile delivers substantially more performance and overclocking potential, provided you have the space for the card. No matter how you want to slice it, the R9 Nano is going after a niche. If you fall in its target demographic, Nano excels at packing a lot of performance into a small space, but for general desktop use it loses some appeal. A Tiny Overclocked VolcanoWith a TDP of 175W, the Nano is going after a far lower power target than any other Fiji-based GPU. Things become interesting when we move on to overclocking, as AMD's Overdrive utility provides the usual ability to increase the power target as well as clock speed. Where things get a bit iffy is when we look at the maximum 50 percent increase in power target; there's only a single 8-pin power connection, rated for 150W, plus another 75W from the x16 motherboard connection. That gives us 225W total power delivery, but 175W * 1.5 = 262.5W. Throwing caution to the wind, we set our sights on warp factor 9.99 with a 50 percent increase to the power limit and a 10 percent increase on the GPU overclock. Unfortunately, after a few trial runs we determined it was too much for the Nano to handle—the tiny volcano kept erupting in our faces. Further experiments ultimately led us to conclude that the real issue was the 50 percent power draw increase, and even a 40 percent increase was still unstable. Most likely the card's power delivery simply isn't designed to cope with much more than 225W, though other system components may play a role as well. Eventually we decided staying closer to the 225W power delivery of the x16 slot and 8-pin connector was necessary and ended up with a 35 percent increase in power target and a six percent increase in core clock. The power limit may have some flexibility, but the maximum core clock hits a pretty hard limit—we saw artifacts even with a seven percent overclock, with everything from a 20–50 percent power limit. Considering the Nano is binned to run at lower voltages than Fury X, that's probably part of the reduced clock speed range. What exactly did the increase in power limit and GPU clocks do for performance? We got a pretty consistent 10-15 percent improvement in overall frame rates, which puts overclocked R9 Nano somewhere between the R9 Fury and the R9 Fury X. Additional time spent tuning the GPU core and RAM clocks could help, but without the ability to tweak voltages that's all we were able to get. And really, overclocking the R9 Nano goes against the design ethos of the card in the first place. The vast majority of users will be better served by a different card if they're thinking about overclocking—R9 Fury or R9 Fury X for AMD users, or the 980 Ti is easily the most compelling high-end overclocking GPU for everyone else. Size MattersThe Nano is really an astounding GPU in many respects. It shows how with a bit of tuning, Fiji can go from being a 275W monster to a 175W tiny terror. Put the Nano next to most other GPUs and you'd expect it to deliver inferior performance, but in many cases it doesn't. The density and space requirements of HBM are a huge win in this regard; look at the area used for GDDR5 on a 6GB 980 Ti graphics card or even a 4GB GTX 980 and compare that with the Fiji package that contains memory and GPU in less than half the space and you can see why most other GPUs can't hope to go as small as the Nano. But while there's no question it's the fastest GPU in its size class, that doesn't mean it's the right GPU for you. Some people love the brute force approach of muscle cars, and R9 Fury X or GTX 980 Ti will be a much better fit if that's your thing. The majority of gamers use desktop systems with sufficient room for at least a 10-inch graphics card, and paying extra just to get a smaller, more efficient GPU isn't likely to grab their attention. Instead, it's those running truly compact Mini-ITX rigs, and system builders looking to sell such systems, that will find plenty to like in the R9 Nano. We're also curious to see where else AMD might try to take Fiji. Giving up 10-15 percent performance to drop from 275W to 175W is really impressive, but what if you want to go even lower…like the 100W limit you'll find in most high-end gaming notebooks? Another 10-15 percent drop in performance should fit the bill. We haven't seen a truly new high-end AMD mobile GPU since the HD 7970M, aka HD 8970M, aka R9 M290X. Those are all derived from the Pitcairn architecture that launched over three years ago, and Fiji would be a huge boost in performance and features, even at lowered clocks. Supply and demand for the various Fiji-based products is also still problematic. The Fury X continues to be out of stock and/or insanely priced, but whether that's due to high demand or limited supply (or both) is not entirely clear. R9 Fury cards on the other hand tend to be readily available at MSRP. If Fury X and Nano are both taking the best-binned chips, it could be that many chips are failing to meet those requirements and ending up as stock R9 Fury. Hopefully the launch of R9 Nano signals an end to the limited availability of the Fiji cards, as there are Fury X buyers still waiting for prices to come down. Ultimately, the R9 Nano is a classic case of diminishing returns where spending substantially more money doesn't net you a commensurate increase in performance, but diminishing returns coupled with diminishing size is something new and different. If you're big on Mini-ITX systems, then this is undoubtedly 95 Kick-Ass hardware; if you're not so enthralled with small PCs, it ends up being a lot of money for less performance and you can knock 5–10 points off the score. We've gone with the intended audience (Mini-ITX fans), but personal preference will play a big role for end users. It will be interesting to see what others do with the concept, and we're sure to see some outrageous mini-PC builds rivaling even AMD's Project Quantum. Follow Jarred on Twitter. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You are subscribed to email updates from Maximum PC latest stories. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
