What Are Your Opinions on the R9 Nano

[byalexandr]

For a mini ITX system like mine, and even though I can fit a full size GPU, would it still be worth considering over a Fury X since my space where the radiator would be is taken up by the CPU cooler? What do you guys think of the following:

 

-The things they did to cut 100W off of the TDP.

-The industrial design (IMO it looks like they got a hole saw and cut a hole in that rectangle space and it doesn't look very clean).

-The price, which is $649USD, same as the liquid cooled Fury X.

 

I am awaiting your responses! Honestly I'm just going with a 970, such a good value. I just wanted y'alls opinions on the Nano. Thanks!

 

Oh, do you guys think this card is for the people who wanted a Fury in their system, but all of the cards that the Fury comes in are too long? So they made this?

[byalexandr]

BTW I doubt lowering the clock speed by ~50MHz cut 100W TDP. There has to be a catch.

[Castdeath97]

We will have to wait for reviews.

[soaringchicken]

I don't think I'll ever buy it, but it's a nice change from AMD and I'm happy it exists. 

[Lord_Karango17]

One thing I cant wrap my head around is how they decreased the tdp of it by 100W even though it has the same core as the fury x, while the tdp of the fury is the same as the fury x, with but with less cores

 

there has to be a catch...

[ZetZet]

We already had one. It was called GTX 970.

[themaniac]

i think its a waste of money just like the fury x both do not perform better then the one they were supposed to beat the 980 ti and the nano performs even worse then the fury x for the same damn price, and thats why i'm considering getting the 970 instead of 390 because they are f*cking killing them selves with no good f*cking reason

[Nena Trinity]

If its gonna be a better 970 then I welcome it!

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

We already had one. It was called GTX 970.

 

Sorry bud. 3.5GB. 

 

Heh.

[Morgan MLGman]

Sorry bud. 3.5GB. 

 

Heh.

That's a BS I encountered literally no difference in benchmarking Shadow of Mordor with my GTX970 on high and ultra textures with one taking 3300MB of VRAM the other one around 4000MB. Not even 1 FPS difference. I was using hardware monitor from MSI:AB to check the VRAM usage.

[byalexandr]

One thing I cant wrap my head around is how they decreased the tdp of it by 100W even though it has the same core as the fury x, while the tdp of the fury is the same as the fury x, with but with less cores

 

there has to be a catch...

Exactly!

 

Sorry bud. 3.5GB. 

 

Heh.

 

More than enough for 1080p. I have 2GB right now.

[byalexandr]

That's a BS I encountered literally no difference in benchmarking Shadow of Mordor with my GTX970 on high and ultra textures with one taking 3300MB of VRAM the other one around 4000MB. Not even 1 FPS difference. I was using hardware monitor from MSI:AB to check the VRAM usage.

Let's not turn this into a GTX 970 VRAM flame war.

[Guest]

We already had one. It was called GTX 970.

lmao yes

[byalexandr]

We already had one. It was called GTX 970.

?? The Nano would destroy the 970. It's a Fury X core, so it would compete with a 980 Ti (but not win).

[Lord_Karango17]

Sorry bud. 3.5GB. 

 

Heh.

Not much of a problem in the 970's intended use case.

 

Considering Im fine with 3gb at 1440p, a person using the 970 should be fine with 3.5gb at 1080p...

[Lord_Karango17]

?? The Nano would destroy the 970. It's a Fury X core, so it would compete with a 980 Ti (but not win).

I heard somewhere that it would be on par with the fury non x, which is still faster than a 970.

[byalexandr]

Not much of a problem in the 970's intended use case.

 

Considering Im fine with 3gb at 1440p, a person using the 970 should be fine with 3.5gb at 1080p...

Haha, exactly what I just said. I only game at 1080p lol. Great minds think alike I guess.

[byalexandr]

I heard somewhere that it would be on par with the fury non x, which is still faster than a 970.

It uses a fully unlocked Fuy X chip, I think they just locked the core clocks to 1000MHz, so I guess that would make it perform the same as a Fury. Still amazes me how they managed to slice 100W off and still not cut any cores.

[Lord_Karango17]

It uses a fully unlocked Fuy X chip, I think they just locked the core clocks to 1000MHz, so I guess that would make it perform the same as a Fury. Still amazes me how they managed to slice 100W off and still not cut any cores.

Wait, that means the fury nano will be running only 50 mhz slower than the fury x. how does that lead to a 100W decrease in perf?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

That's a BS I encountered literally no difference in benchmarking Shadow of Mordor with my GTX970 on high and ultra textures with one taking 3300MB of VRAM the other one around 4000MB. Not even 1 FPS difference. I was using hardware monitor from MSI:AB to check the VRAM usage.

 

Not much of a problem in the 970's intended use case.

 

Considering Im fine with 3gb at 1440p, a person using the 970 should be fine with 3.5gb at 1080p...

 

Yes me buds

[ZetZet]

?? The Nano would destroy the 970. It's a Fury X core, so it would compete with a 980 Ti (but not win).

are you kidding? amd's own leaked benchmarks show nano competing with 390x. It will not even TOUCH 980ti.

 

Someone (you) is making up his own story of amd's success.

[don_svetlio]

are you kidding? amd's own leaked benchmarks show nano competing with 390x. It will not even TOUCH 980ti.

 

Someone (you) is making up his own story of amd's success.

In any case it will be more powerful than a 970 and maybe a 980, in which case it will offer better performance per watt than both of those

[byalexandr]

are you kidding? amd's own leaked benchmarks show nano competing with 390x. It will not even TOUCH 980ti.

 

Someone (you) is making up his own story of amd's success.

Huh? It has a Fury X core that is 50MHz slower. It will at least be faster than the 980.

[Elfuego]

One thing I cant wrap my head around is how they decreased the tdp of it by 100W even though it has the same core as the fury x, while the tdp of the fury is the same as the fury x, with but with less cores

 

there has to be a catch...

 

Probably by binning the best of the best parts; because Heat scales linearly with clockspead but scales to the square of voltage.

 

tldr:

 

Find the "freaks" that take 0.2V Less than normal = Profit.

 

NB The 0.2 is a number - I cba to work out the actual Vcore reduction. Also remember you wont need to power a pump.

[ZetZet]

Huh? It has a Fury X core that is 50MHz slower. It will at least be faster than the 980.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/436531-amd-reveals-r9-nano-benchmarks-ahead-of-launch/

It will probably be about as fast as a 980 at stock clocks.

It's 2 fps faster than a 290x in amd's own benchmarks.

 

 

In any case it will be more powerful than a 970 and maybe a 980, in which case it will offer better performance per watt than both of those

if it's $650 it doesn't matter like at all what kind of performance per watt it gets.