CarlosRex

AMD already said that this card will have "significantly more performance" than the R9 290X. So its going to target the GTX 980 and up.
The math is pretty sound, and puts the Nano at a competing level with the GTX 980, maybe a bit faster.
 
 
 Remember that you can't compare AMD and Nvidia cards based on FP32. Nvidia makes up for compute with a stronger geometry engine, so Nvidia GPUs with lower tflops can still keep up with AMD cards with more tflops in games.

AMD already said that this card will have "significantly more performance" than the R9 290X. So its going to target the GTX 980 and up.
The math is pretty sound, and puts the Nano at a competing level with the GTX 980, maybe a bit faster.
 
 
 Remember that you can't compare AMD and Nvidia cards based on FP32. Nvidia makes up for compute with a stronger geometry engine, so Nvidia GPUs with lower tflops can still keep up with AMD cards with more tflops in games.

I don't think many will opt for refunds but I certainly believe that Nvidia's reputation has been irreversibly damaged by this scandal.
Either way you slice it, it looks awful for Nvidia. Because it either means they deliberately lied bout the specifications of the GTX 970 or that their marketing team is so hopelessly incompetent as to make such an "error". And frankly I don't know which is worse.

You're looking at preliminary numbers outside of the U.S. which is irrelevant. They both are listed on U.S. retailers for the posted prices in the U.S.
  Faa is on a hate train against anything that has to do with AMD. He's a die hard Nvidia/Intel fanboy that's about as thick as the walls of the Hoover Dam.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

It's not debatable. Freesync is definitely cheaper than gsync. BenQ is just trying to take advantage of being early to the market.

It's not debatable. Freesync is definitely cheaper than gsync. BenQ is just trying to take advantage of being early to the market.

It's not debatable. Freesync is definitely cheaper than gsync. BenQ is just trying to take advantage of being early to the market.

It's not debatable. Freesync is definitely cheaper than gsync. BenQ is just trying to take advantage of being early to the market.

It's not debatable. Freesync is definitely cheaper than gsync. BenQ is just trying to take advantage of being early to the market.

Apparently you don't know how to read the whole thread. I debunked the theory of FreeSync raising cost on the last page (BenQ official product page backs it up).

FreeSync is an open standard which means its royalty free (no cost to manufacture). What you're paying for with this particular display is how massive it is in the feature packed department. There's a lot of bells and whistles that account for cost that I personally would never use.
 
All displays will support FreeSync in the future. FreeSync only relies on the Display Port 1.2a VESA standard known as Adaptive-Sync. FreeSync has no implementation display side so there's no cost of "implementing it" for the manufacture. I imagine by 2017 more then half of all new displays on the market will support FreeSync out of the box as the Display Port 1.2a standard gains traction. One thing to note is the official product page for this particular display is not even advertising it as being "FreeSync ready". What makes it FreeSync compatible is the fact that the display does support Adaptive-Sync.
 

 
ROG PG278Q    = $799.99 ($899.99)
BenQ XL2730Z = $629.99 ($799.99)
 
Get rid of all the stupid features and give us a basic display like the PG278Q and you got a display that costs no more than current 27" QHD 144 Hz offerings.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

Source via PCPer
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/geforce-gtx-970-correcting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/4
It appears this is a classic case of false advertising. Nvidia's marketing team has been known to stretch the truth with their marketing in the past. For instance claiming a 165W TDP for the GTX 980 (which is false) to claim a 2X perf/watt boost over Kepler.

 
Another example is advertising the Tegra X1 chip as a 1TFLOP "supercomputer" when in fact they're using half precision peak FP16 performance figures. A performance metric which was abandoned from Shader model 3.0 onwards and utterly unsuitable for a "supercomputer" which not only requires FP32 but even more so double precision FP64 compute. In which the Tegra X1 can only deliver less than 2% of the advertised compute performance.

That's a new low, blaming the 970 users for Nvidia's false advertising. Shameful.