Now I see where my mistake was. Fury X is 1.5x Perf/Watt while Nano is 2x Perf/Watt

With that, Nano should theoretically be between 20 and 27% faster than an R9 290X.

Good news, R9 390X has same performance than gtx980, some games winning, some games losing. In 4K they are similar too. But price is heavily favorable for AMD. 350 pounds in the UK.

Good, I hope more reviews come soon. Meanwhile I found a new slide and the User Guide for Fury X.

Now, that's a slide provided by AMD so I wouldn't use it to make comparisons with what Nvidia has on offer (mostly because Far Cry 4 favor AMD cards). But to put those numbers in a certain perspetive, the 290X delivers an average of 33 fps (from AnandTech's bench).

And the User Guide in pdf

http://support.amd.com/Documents/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x.pdf

BlueSlippySocks, you may find this interesting (and disappointing): under the "Connecting Displays" section, we find this:

"AMD Eyefinity technology is a solution that allows up to six displays to be simultaneously run off a single graphics card. The AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury X graphics card is capable of AMD Eyefinity technology and can support Ultra HD resolutions via the DisplayPort connection."

I'm affraid that points to Fury coming with HDMI 1.4.

Guru3d review is up as well

"So then, 290X or 390X? Realistically, you need to see what the prices will do, as the rest is irrelevant. You can tweak any 290X close to the 390X performance wise, the faster memory won't make a big difference as the 290X already had a ton of memory bandwidth, and then the only thing that remains is the bump from 4GB towards 8GB of graphics memory. As stated, that is not going to make a significant enough difference for the majority of you guys either. So pricing will be relevant until the 290 series are phased out and a 4GB 290X at the monent will be nearly 100 EURO cheaper opposed to the 8GB 390X. MSI has a great build at hand with their gaming edition card, a little bulky maybe, but it ticks all the right boxes and as such can be recommended if you are in the market for a product like this. The MSI Radeon R9-390X Gaming 8G OC is recommended and approved by Guru3D.com if you are upgrading from say the 7800 or 7900 series, as that would make sense. But pricing wise, be on the lookout for good deals on the 290 series."

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r9-390x-gaming-8g-oc-review,1.html

There's once thing I noticed and it's that both reviews give differrent results when it comes to power consumption. Guru3D has the 390X using less power than their 290X card, but Overclock3D has it using more.

I'm going to trust OC3D more.

Anyway, I'm going to pass on AMD's 3xx series. They're still too big and power hungry (aka hot) for my case.

Turns out the MSI card is overcocked, stock 390x performance is gerally behind that of the 980 (by 6%). I'll wait for the Nano.

I already assumed that the card would be overclocked, specially given that it's basically a 290X.

And yes, Nano would be better suited for my needs, but it will be more expensive and I agree with Tachi that it will be better to wait and see how the HBM cards reliability is.

Videocardz has posted Fury's reviewer's guide

http://videocardz.com/56728/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-reviewers-guide

And as part of that, AMD included some "official" benchmarks comparing the card with Nvidia's 980Ti at 4K

I'm liking the look of the nano. I've been wanting to make a pretty small gaming rig for a while, but there hasn't been anything good to pull it off. Now it looks like there is.

It's one of the advantages of going from GDDR5 to HBM, graphic cards can be a lot smaller.