I can usually slump back and let my eyes glass over watching videos like this, but this one put the rub on me.
Maybe it's because the pro's and cons of these two have been discussed ad nauseam. Or it could be the 1070 around the corner. The 970 mini is over a year old, at release it was ~$350, it is still ~$350. Nano ~$500. At this point I would hope your (well informed by ltt) audience knows the basic traits of the cards ... faster card = more money, more power use, more heat. I don't need a graph to understand that and no amount of comically applied gaff tape will make air flow testing more interesting.
But since you bore me with poorly scripted data spew I will put a spin on it. The load wattage difference between the 970(234w) and Nano(290w) was ~60 watts which is coincidentally about the same amount between the Nano and the Fury(354w). The in game performance difference between the Fury(32fps) and Nano(31fps) is only 1 fps on average. In my opinion cutting 60 watts of power use yet only 1 fps on average is impressive. I did a bit of math too, based on your graphs total system power with the Nano equates to 9.4 watts/frame whereas the 970 uses 10.2 watts/frame, making the Nano a more power efficient albeit more power hungry card.
This video may have been a nice companion piece to the Fallout build. I begrudgingly look forward to the rehash of this sff debate with the next generation of gpus.
dclassb got a reaction from BenjaminC in Small Form Factor Video Card Showdown
dclassb got a reaction from JayD in BlackBerry wants you to trade you iPhone for a BB Passport
