AMD R9 Nano compared to a pencil!

[Misanthrope]

Lol, as if we haven't had high end graphics cards that small before.

 

Not that high end. Verdict it's still out on the numbers but the 970 was about the best on this size and this should comfortably beat it.

[Misanthrope]

why are you excited, it's barely more powerful than 290x in amd's own benchmarks.

 

I personally want to see how they are achieving this: if it's mostly with aggressive fan curves and under clocking you could potentially just force it ramp up anyway and have it perform at Fury X levels. Not saying it will beat a Fury nonx and that's still basically canibalizing both the Fury X and Nano but still once prices get reasonable (and if anything, you can expect them to since it's AMD we're talking about if the Hawaii is anything to go by we'll be getting this cards in 2017 for like 250 bucks) they might be worth your time.

 

So maybe not immediately exiting but still interesting to see.

[The Benjamins]

 

why would you want to mount a waterblock on this shit card, would completely defeat the purpose of buying it over fury x

 

 

why are you excited, it's barely more powerful than 290x in amd's own benchmarks.

 

 

I don't plan on getting it, I just want to know if it can. it is smaller then a fury and if it become cheaper then it could be a better buy then a fury x in some cases.

 

just because someone asks what something is like of if it can do something, dose not mean then want to do it or get it.

[ZetZet]

I personally want to see how they are achieving this: if it's mostly with aggressive fan curves and under clocking you could potentially just force it ramp up anyway and have it perform at Fury X levels. Not saying it will beat a Fury nonx and that's still basically canibalizing both the Fury X and Nano but still once prices get reasonable (and if anything, you can expect them to since it's AMD we're talking about if the Hawaii is anything to go by we'll be getting this cards in 2017 for like 250 bucks) they might be worth your time.

 

So maybe not immediately exiting but still interesting to see.

it won't perform at fury x levels, can't you read? it's about as powerful as 390x. it will run at like 500-600 mhz and have a boost clock that's way higher than that. so maybe it will have more consistant framerates, but the performance is 40% below fury x.

[Arty]

Well with this we know they might have the review samples and are testing until the embargo(dunno if their is one?) is up.

jay showed it last night on the TECH talk

[Misanthrope]

it won't perform at fury x levels, can't you read? it's about as powerful as 390x. it will run at like 500-600 mhz and have a boost clock that's way higher than that. so maybe it will have more consistant framerates, but the performance is 40% below fury x.

 

Yeah I can read, question is did you?

 

I personally want to see how they are achieving this: if it's mostly with aggressive fan curves and under clocking you could potentially just force it ramp up anyway and have it perform at Fury X levels. Not saying it will beat a Fury nonx and that's still basically canibalizing both the Fury X and Nano but still once prices get reasonable (and if anything, you can expect them to since it's AMD we're talking about if the Hawaii is anything to go by we'll be getting this cards in 2017 for like 250 bucks) they might be worth your time.

 

So maybe not immediately exiting but still interesting to see.

 

It has the same amount of shaders at 4092 meaning the decrease and power and thermal savings come from under-clocking meaning you can potentially overclock it back to Fury X levels since the shaders are there is not a cut down version.

[Tomsen]

it won't perform at fury x levels, can't you read? it's about as powerful as 390x. it will run at like 500-600 mhz and have a boost clock that's way higher than that. so maybe it will have more consistant framerates, but the performance is 40% below fury x.

What makes you think nano is only as powerful as a 390x?

What makes you think it will run 500-600Mhz? That just sounds to low.

40%? Really? I don't think that is a consistent number.

[ZetZet]

Yeah I can read, question is did you?

 

 

It has the same amount of shaders at 4092 meaning the decrease and power and thermal savings come from under-clocking meaning you can potentially overclock it back to Fury X levels since the shaders are there is not a cut down version.

it's not going to be possible to make it perform at fury x levels, ever. Crippled power delivery 100%. 

 

 

It's just everyday AMD shenanigans, they pick chips which underclock well and stick them into another card. Others go into fury x.

 

 

What makes you think nano is only as powerful as a 390x?

What makes you think it will run 500-600Mhz? That just sounds to low.

40%? Really? I don't think that is a consistent number.

AMD has released Fury Nano benchmarks. It's slightly more powerful than a 290x. It has a boost clock of 1000mhz, which is almost equal to fury x and that's impossible in the universe we live in. 600mhz sounds about right to me.

[Misanthrope]

it's not going to be possible to make it perform at fury x levels, ever. Crippled power delivery 100%. 

 

 

It's just everyday AMD shenanigans, they pick chips which underclock well and stick them into another card. Others go into fury x.

 

Might not be but might be close enough/above the 390x and the Fury nonx. Regardless I don't own a magic fucking crystal back or possess powers to see into the future that's why unlike you, I wrote my post in terms of "might" and "perhaps" and how it would be interesting to see "if" it's possible.

[ZetZet]

Might not be but might be close enough/above the 390x and the Fury nonx. Regardless I don't own a magic fucking crystal back or possess powers to see into the future that's why unlike you, I wrote my post in terms of "might" and "perhaps" and how it would be interesting to see "if" it's possible.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974664/components-graphics/amd-reveals-gameplay-benchmarks-for-radeon-fury-nano.html

 

2fps on 290x. 2.

[Tomsen]

AMD has released Fury Nano benchmarks. It's slightly more powerful than a 290x. It has a boost clock of 1000mhz, which is almost equal to fury x and that's impossible in the universe we live in. 600mhz sounds about right to me.

 

Yes, the numbers are quite close, but try take the procentages.

No, it is not impossible.

600Mhz still sounds to low.

[MEC-777]

The price. 

 

[ZetZet]

Yes, the numbers are quite close, but try take the procentages.

No, it is not impossible.

600Mhz still sounds to low.

What do you mean it's not impossible. IT'S THE SAME CORE. You can't make the same thing have double performance per watt if you don't underclock the shit out of it.

[The Benjamins]

 

it's not going to be possible to make it perform at fury x levels, ever. Crippled power delivery 100%. 

 

 

It's just everyday AMD shenanigans, they pick chips which underclock well and stick them into another card. Others go into fury x.

 

 

AMD has released Fury Nano benchmarks. It's slightly more powerful than a 290x. It has a boost clock of 1000mhz, which is almost equal to fury x and that's impossible in the universe we live in. 600mhz sounds about right to me.

 

 

 

Might not be but might be close enough/above the 390x and the Fury nonx. Regardless I don't own a magic fucking crystal back or possess powers to see into the future that's why unlike you, I wrote my post in terms of "might" and "perhaps" and how it would be interesting to see "if" it's possible.

 

 

also boost clocks does not mean i will run at that all the time, it mostly mean the chip is rated to run at 1000 Mhz if it can be power/cooled enough.

 

so if it runs on average at 500-700 then you have 300-500 Mhz head room for if you can keep it cool like add a water block to it. I want to find out if this is true. if so then that is awesome.

[ZetZet]

so if it runs on average at 500-700 then you have 300-500 Mhz head room for if you can keep it cool like add a water block to it. I want to find out if this is true. if so then that is awesome.

why is that awesome, just buy a fury x then. you make no sense.

[Misanthrope]

why is that awesome, just buy a fury x then. you make no sense.

 

You already said that and made your points abundantly clear: please stop repeating or contribute something else to the discussion.

[ZetZet]

You already said that and made your points abundantly clear: please stop repeating or contribute something else to the discussion.

I don't understand why you guys keep posting the same thing either. It can't magically perform better than fury x, it just can't. Why would you even consider a waterblock.

[Tomsen]

What do you mean it's not impossible. IT'S THE SAME CORE. You can't make the same thing have double performance per watt if you don't underclock the shit out of it.

You need to look into power-gating and other power-management features that are implemented in todays GPUs.

You don't have to use the ENTIRE core. Also the function of power is not linear with clockspeed...

[HumbleMobo]

500$?  I'd say more like 350$ and 250$ refurbed

[KeltonDSMer]

Why are some expecting this to cost less compared to the Fury x (or even Fury, wtf)? It is a full spec Fiji core, of course it will cost more than the Fury. By that logic, a small 980 should cost less than a 970! The BOM cost for the CM CLC I doubt is much more than R&D/production of a conventional heatpipe heatsinnk for a new PCB (can't recycle old design). What I mean is, I bet the cost of getting a Fury x out the door is similar to a Nano. The CLC is mostly "off the shelf" parts while the Nano heatsink is completely unique and designed from the ground up.

 

EVGA goes ahead and charges up to an extra $300 for a top binned 980ti, no problem there. AMD bins some full Fiji cores for certain characteristics, sells them for the same price as Fury x in a cute little package,  and that is crummy for some reason?

 

I thought all that mattered these days was perf/watt... now that AMD has likely narrowed the gap with their underclocked mini Fiji, no one seems to give a shit.

 

Yeah I can read, question is did you?

 

 

It has the same amount of shaders at 4092 meaning the decrease and power and thermal savings come from under-clocking meaning you can potentially overclock it back to Fury X levels since the shaders are there is not a cut down version.

 

For sure, but I doubt that the Nano will run at as high of a voltage as Fury x and will probably have no voltage control available considering the singe 8pin and the marketing for the card revolving around efficiency and form factor.

 

At the end of the day, I just wish AMD allowed the AIBs to do whatever they want with Fiji. The OEM rebranding theme they started with the 295x2 is lame. We get less choice, and AMD's partners make less money. Give us a 3 slot air cooled full fat Fiji with 3 8 pins and unlocked voltage, give us more Nano-style cards... just let those companies do what they do! I'd be so pissed if I was Saphire or XFX right now; they only sell AMD cards and aren't even allowed to do anything but be re-distributors for cards they didn't design...

[The Benjamins]

why is that awesome, just buy a fury x then. you make no sense.

 

the nano has a potential of being discounted cheaper then a FuryX. so if it get priced down the road $100-$200 cheaper and you already plan on water cooling your card, I would want to know if I could get the same card for cheaper. also the nano is smaller.

 

its like saying why get a 980ti just get a titanX

[ZetZet]

the nano has a potential of being discounted cheaper then a FuryX. so if it get priced down the road $100-$200 cheaper and you already plan on water cooling your card, I would want to know if I could get the same card for cheaper. also the nano is smaller.

 

its like saying why get a 980ti just get a titanX

nano won't have the power delivery like the fury x. 

[Misanthrope]

I don't understand why you guys keep posting the same thing either. It can't magically perform better than fury x, it just can't. Why would you even consider a waterblock.

 

Don't agree does not equal don't understand. You understand my reasons perfectly, you just want to keep arguing and getting the last word in when points have been made and addressed.

[The Benjamins]

nano won't have the power delivery like the fury x. 

 

as of now we don't know what the power delivery is like and that is what overclocking is pushing it past rated limits. people do this all the time with almost every GPU on the market so why can't we do it on the nano?

 

and that is why I was stating I want to know. 

[Misanthrope]

Why are some expecting this to cost less compared to the Fury x (or even Fury, wtf)? It is a full spec Fiji core, of course it will cost more than the Fury. By that logic, a small 980 should cost less than a 970! The BOM cost for the CM CLC I doubt is much more than R&D/production of a conventional heatpipe heatsinnk for a new PCB (can't recycle old design). What I mean is, I bet the cost of getting a Fury x out the door is similar to a Nano. The CLC is mostly "off the shelf" parts while the Nano heatsink is completely unique and designed from the ground up.

 

EVGA goes ahead and charges up to an extra $300 for a top binned 980ti, no problem there. AMD bins some full Fiji cores for certain characteristics, sells them for the same price as Fury x in a cute little package,  and that is crummy for some reason?

 

I thought all that mattered these days was perf/watt... now that AMD has likely narrowed the gap with their underclocked mini Fiji, no one seems to give a shit.

 

 

For sure, but I doubt that the Nano will run at as high of a voltage as Fury x and will probably have no voltage control available considering the singe 8pin and the marketing for the card revolving around efficiency and form factor.

 

At the end of the day, I just wish AMD allowed the AIBs to do whatever they want with Fiji. The OEM rebranding theme they started with the 295x2 is lame. We get less choice, and AMD's partners make less money. Give us a 3 slot air cooled full fat Fiji with 3 8 pins and unlocked voltage, give us more Nano-style cards... just let those companies do what they do! I'd be so pissed if I was Saphire or XFX right now; they only sell AMD cards and aren't even allowed to do anything but be re-distributors for cards they didn't design...

 

Well I first I considered that and thought it was a bad choice as well but since, I came up with an idea why they're doing that: They just don't have enough production to supply chips for both reference and non-reference. They wanna get their reference design out first once they get better yields they will probably let em do whatever they want.

 

If you think about it is also why the Fury nonx does allow non reference design: they can take all the not so great yields from the full Fiji and run those to the Fury nonx