Hate to break it to you.....but....Labuan only duty-free.....not GST free....

Cause most PC shops buy the electronics goods from KL distribution center at GST inclusive price. (Already got GST at import stage)
Blame it on cabotage policy.

EDIT: "GST-free in name only"

EDIT V2 : Some may say shop can claim GST credit from supplier (in this case, KL distribution center), but for this to be possible.....shops must register for GST. Majority of shops in Labuan won't register for sure.

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Aug 4 2015, 12:07 AM

This is not how premium pricing works. AMD marketing screws up here.
For HTPC user, there is no justification on buying nano as it doesnt support upcoming HEVC 10bit hardware decoding and HDMI 2.0 for proper UHD content.
Getting Skylake CPU/IGPU or GTX960/950 would be better alternative.

For gamer (majority with large chassis) , why settle for underperforming Nano when they can opts for Fury X AIO or GTX980TI with similar price?
Gamer with mini-ITX chassis are niche or very small market segment.

If the leaked slides are to be believed.....Nano will run under 900Mhz or even less (700-800mhz) once temp/power limit is reached.

Before this, AMD seems to advertise Nano as cheaper product than Fury X AIO. So, the hype for cheaper air cooled variant of full Fiji builds up......and finally dissipated right after the price is known.
Marketing at its best.....sigh.

The big issue = cant make much revenue by serving niche market segment.

AMD E3 PC Gamer by CEO herself. It was touted as weaker variant of Fury X AIO (launch price of $649). (First stage of setting expectation.)
Recall that Fury X 'leaked' slide comparison was done with GTX 980TI. (Setting second stage of expectation performance/price)
Then, 'leaked' slide comparison nano with GTX980. (Final stage of setting expectation)


The hype building was comparing nano better performance with GTX 980, so people will think/EDIT:expect the pricing would be slightly expensive than GTX980, not the exact same price with Fury X AIO.

EDIT: Because $649 is unofficial price, I am leaning towards AMD is trying to gauge consumers reaction to the price. After all, AMD can change the pricing right before the official announcement.

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Aug 27 2015, 06:40 PM

Hoho....I was expecting it to be priced at $550-580 since the Fury X water cooler system itself costs around $99.

R9 270 alone performs WAY better than 7850K IGPU + 250X.

Oh, btw, you can only crossfire 250X DDR3 variant (not GDDR5, it will works, but gddr5 bandwidth will be limited to your system ram bandwidth).

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Aug 31 2015, 10:03 PM

-.- Then if you insist on purchasing AMD gpu, considers AT LEAST R9 380 4gb.

-.-....well....I do think AMD makes a huge mistake not sending one sample to Techpowerup.

After all, TPU develops the popular GPU-Z. Without one sample, it will be hard for them to ready to update the monitoring sensors info and database.

And the price will make you feel UGHHHHHH

I think AMD should fire its marketing/PR personnel for overhyping and being arrogant at same time.

AMD PR division is promoting unrealistic consumer expectation for the product.
Bulldozer + Kaveri architecture is one.....

Hyping Carizzo is good.....but where is the product? (Paper launch again?)

Fury X and Fury Nano performance as well?

Yes, initially only 7850k and 7770k available for sales after being launched in January 2014 at somewhat expensive price.
The A8-7600 was paper launched in Jan 2014 at good price......only available for sales in around August 2014 at its same Jan 2014 launch price.

For the bad news, apparently, AMD keeps the same managerial PR team from bulldozer area. Only some minions from PR was fired during previous restructuring.

Oh? A8-7600 was expensive than its MSRP in Malaysia, straight away I bought used Core I3-4330 instead.

Nah.....nothing short of deja vu.
Last time, there was bitcoin mining craze which caused 290X price to go up.

This time, it is just AMD chip supplier (TSMC or GlobalFoundries, not sure which one produced Fiji gpu die) cant produce sufficient quantity at acceptable yield for cut down Fury and full configuration Fiji.

The timing is a bit spot on...

Forming of Radeon Technology Group is probably one of main condition set by Silver Lake Partners for the 20% purchase of AMD shares.

I guess the Radeon Technology Group might works after all.

See this ;
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041846331&postcount=110
http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated-a...sion-apologizes

Roy was saying......the 'fair reviews' was taken out of context.....

I guess Roy is learning it from our certain politicians.

Impressive Nano, too bad the price tag doesnt suit it.

So...seeing Nano is officially better binned chip than the one used for Fury X......does this means Fury X buyers got sold with 'lower' quality chip?

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Sep 10 2015, 11:55 PM

Just reading some user comments from several reviewer sites that they feel cheated by AMD.

Mostly at reddit/wccftech when you search for nano, then checking the comment section.
Quite a lot of toxic comments though.


Some claiming AMD used them and charged them $650 for water cooling chip setup with high leakage (that cant really overclock far) while keeping the better chip that can easily reach same fury X clock rate with mere adjustment at CCC on simple air cooling (aka the Nano).

The problem is......it isn't overclocking reasonably well enough.
There was one overclocker who able to overclock (volt modding?) Fury (cut down of Fury X) to 1400mhz and the cooling and power requirements are insane.
Fiji chip efficiency is thrown out of whack once it reaches 1ghz.

I wonder how well will this better binned Fiji/Nano will fare if it is using water cooling. (The lower power phases might be an issue though)

Eh, I am starting to think the other reason that AMD reorganizes the Radeon division might be easier entity separation (sold off? spun off?) if thing suddenly get bad for AMD.

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Sep 11 2015, 05:19 PM

Something like Intel CPU or Nvidia Maxwell V2 level of overclocking.

Example, increasing GTX980 base clock from 1126MHz to 1377MHz (251Mhz differences, unless if you consider max boost clock) only resulted in extra 47-67 watts (based on anandtech gtx 980 review)


EDIT:

Oh, someone finally asked amd about the 'binned' controversy.

My question: I plan on water-cooling and overclocking the Nano in a tiny case. What kind of performance can I expect while watercooling+overclocking the Nano compared to the Fury X especially since the Nano is a higher binned card?

There has been some misconception out there that the Nano is an uber binned part. Actually, both Nano and Fury X share the same ASIC configuration. What differs is the audience and form factor the products are targeted for. If you are interested in water cooling, aftermarket waterblocks are available for both the Nano and Fury X however the Nano is designed to be smaller and more power efficient with lower overall clocks and power delivery circuit. The Fury X is the card you want if you intend to push the Fiji ASIC to the absolute limit.

- Victor

Source

This post has been edited by JohnLai: Sep 12 2015, 11:35 AM