R9 Nano benchmarks surface

[SkilledRebuilds]

@ 175watts, using less power than my overclocked HD7950 (Which is up to 210watts)

My Stock HD7950 using 180watts (7950's came out with that similar single fan cooler too)

That fan will do the job fine, not the best, but fine.

 

Side note - My Gigabyte 1040Mhz 290x easily surpasses 250-280watts, up to 290-305watts variable seen with GPU-Z

[Dabombinable]

You can't do math. 290x tdp is 290W, 970 is 145. Now I know tdp doesn't mean consume BUT that's the number AMD is talking about.

TDP doesn't mean jack shit when the actual power consumption is completely different. Just like AMD CPU being almost dead on when it comes to TDP/power consumption unlike Intel.

[Curufinwe_wins]

TDP doesn't mean jack shit when the actual power consumption is completely different. Just like AMD CPU being almost dead on when it comes to TDP/power consumption unlike Intel.

Every review seems to say over 100W difference as well.

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html

294 vs 181

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review

(This is 390 vs 970 so the 290x consumes noticeably more. But 447 vs 277)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-and-980-reference-review,7.html

286 vs 164

[Dabombinable]

Every review seems to say over 100W difference as well.

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html

294 vs 181

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review

(This is 390 vs 970 so the 290x consumes noticeably more. But 447 vs 277)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-and-980-reference-review,7.html

286 vs 164

GTX 970 G1 Gaming vs R9 290X G1 gaming. Look at those then get back to me. Also, clock for clock the R9 series is better than the Nvidia equivalent.

[Curufinwe_wins]

GTX 970 G1 Gaming vs R9 290X G1 gaming. Look at those then get back to me. Also, clock for clock the R9 series is better than the Nvidia equivalent.

Really... Are you going to start MHz warring this up? Seriously?

Clock for clock is completely irrelevant with these completely different architectures and the fact that amd gpus don't reach anywhere near the clock nvidia gpus do.

As to the g1 gaming. It has a 132% fucking power limit... What part of that card is designed to consume as much power as it can feed to you not understand? Literally there isn't a single not ridiculous version of the 970 that consumes more power... You want to cherry pick one card type but not the other?

Let's go with msi's top card for each then... Msi lightning 290x vs msi 970. No competition. 150+ W difference.

Seriously get off your bandwagon and come back to reality.

[Dabombinable]

Really... Are you going to start MHz warring this up? Seriously?

Clock for clock is completely irrelevant with these completely different architectures and the fact that amd gpus don't reach anywhere near the clock nvidia gpus do.

As to the g1 gaming. It has a 132% fucking power limit... What part of that card is designed to consume as much power as it can feed to you not understand? Literally there isn't a single not ridiculous version of the 970 that consumes more power... You want to cherry pick one card type but not the other?

Let's go with msi's top card for each then... Msi lightning 290x vs msi 970. No competition. 150+ W difference.

Seriously get off your bandwagon and come back to reality.

Lmfao, what bandwagon would I happen to be on?

 

Also, not the G1 but I think you got rekt:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/25.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/15

[Curufinwe_wins]

Lmfao, what bandwagon would I happen to be on?

g1.png

Also, not the G1 but I think you got rekt:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/25.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/15

Btw the lightning consumes over 50-60 w more than reference so considering there is a 90? W power difference on average means point made.

Yay you found one case where it wasn't over 100 W. It was 88... Whereas I spotted you 3 and can bring many more. Point remains completely valid.

Look it's certainly less than the 150 W difference in TDP would suggest (although I argue that is due to gpu boost, but that is factored into performance so it's valid).

But on average the difference is certaintly more than 100W.

And AMD is talking about tdp, so perhaps we will find out how well the card actually draws under load.

[Dabombinable]

Btw the lightning consumes over 50-60 w more than reference so considering there is a 90? W power difference on average means point made.

Yay you found one case where it wasn't over 100 W. It was 88... Whereas I spotted you 3 and can bring many more. Point remains completely valid.

It was several cases actually so please read and research before you post. Just because I say that AMD is actually doing something better than Nvidia for once doesn't mean that you need to go off the rails.

[dalekphalm]

It was several cases actually so please read and research before you post. Just because I say that AMD is actually doing something better than Nvidia for once doesn't mean that you need to go off the rails.

What I got most out of all of those benchmarks is that while AMD does use more power, their TDP rating is MUCH CLOSER to actual power consumption. NVIDIA TDP doesn't seem to really relate to power consumption at all in practice. It's some "theoretical best" that in practice is always exceeded under load.

[Curufinwe_wins]

It was several cases actually so please read and research before you post. Just because I say that AMD is actually doing something better than Nvidia for once doesn't mean that you need to go off the rails.

But it isn't... So it's not... Wrong post is wrong. Two times and both are almost 100 watts, versus all the other reviews out there...

[Curufinwe_wins]

What I got most out of all of those benchmarks is that while AMD does use more power, their TDP rating is MUCH CLOSER to actual power consumption. NVIDIA TDP doesn't seem to really relate to power consumption at all in practice. It's some "theoretical best" that in practice is always exceeded under load.

If I had to guess, it's what nvidia would draw if the gpu boost wasn't so aggressive. Like 980ti's boosting to 1400 Mhz instead of rated 1200.

[dalekphalm]

If I had to guess, it's what nvidia would draw if the gpu boost wasn't so aggressive. Like 980ti's boosting to 1400 Mhz instead of rated 1200.

Perhaps, but that's totally useless, since GPU boost is enabled by default.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Perhaps, but that's totally useless, since GPU boost is enabled by default.

My post on the last page agrees.

The only time it would actually be seen then is actually worse case because then gpu boost won't go up past rated if thermals are bad. (See titan x air and many itx cases)

[TheProfosist]

So this might replace my 970 depending.

[EvelynX]

100W Knocked off? I'm not sure I believe it. That's incredible!

[Humbug]

100W Knocked off? I'm not sure I believe it. That's incredible!

Well it's underclocked and probably undervolted compared to fury-x. So could be true..

[kacper]

Perhaps, but that's totally useless, since GPU boost is enabled by default.

But it works. AMD is regarded as power hungry room heater .

[Gunjob]

I'm curious what the pricing will be.  The fury is already 550, fury x 650....  could they make the nano 499?  Even though it's a full fury?  Maybe the part is binned lower that can't hit clocks as high so that makes it easier to discount.  

It'll be binned higher, hence the great power efficiency they're claiming. A low binned chip would not manage a 100watt+ drop from losing 200mhz clock.  

[dalekphalm]

But it works. AMD is regarded as power hungry room heater .

AMD is only regarded that way because of bad reference coolers for ONE SINGLE LINE of their 200 series GPU's - the 290 and 290x. The non-reference models with a decent 3rd party cooler (Tri-X, Windforce, etc) do not have that problem.

 

And they are only power hungry compared to NVIDIA's Maxwell. Compared to Kepler, they're pretty much head to head. And Fiji took that power draw and made it a helluva lot more efficient, since it draws a similar power load to a 290x but blows it out of the water performance wise.

[Valentyn]

AMD is only regarded that way because of bad reference coolers for ONE SINGLE LINE of their 200 series GPU's - the 290 and 290x. The non-reference models with a decent 3rd party cooler (Tri-X, Windforce, etc) do not have that problem.

 

And they are only power hungry compared to NVIDIA's Maxwell. Compared to Kepler, they're pretty much head to head. And Fiji took that power draw and made it a helluva lot more efficient, since it draws a similar power load to a 290x but blows it out of the water performance wise.

 

Never forget the Fermi line of graphics cards, or the drivers that literally cooked graphics cards!

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

@Valentyn lmfao yes so true. I don't know why people seem to forget about Fermi, and the Nuclear Reactor that it was. Fermi makes Hawaii look like a beer cooler.

[Valentyn]

@Valentyn lmfao yes so true. I don't know why people seem to forget about Fermi, and the Nuclear Reactor that it was. Fermi makes Hawaii look like a beer cooler.

 

Most were probably not computer enthusiasts back then; or have a severe case of selective memory. The AMD 5xxx was so much cooler, really fast, and significantly cheaper than the Fermi line.

Fermi was so bad it made the AMD 2900XT look reasonably cool, and that was always jokingly said to require it's own nuclear powerplant to run.

[PudgyAstronaut]

I think they should have used the Fury's GPU for the Nano and have the Fury be the aircooled Fury X version. But oh well... logic I guess.

 

This one is also underclocked

[dalekphalm]

Most were probably not computer enthusiasts back then; or have a severe case of selective memory. The AMD 5xxx was so much cooler, really fast, and significantly cheaper than the Fermi line.

Fermi was so bad it made the AMD 2900XT look reasonably cool, and that was always jokingly said to require it's own nuclear powerplant to run.

The 5xxx was actually pretty kickass all together. AMD had a really solid lineup right through to Tahiti and the 7xxx lineup. The 2xx lineup was still good, but that's where AMD started to lag behind NVIDIA in certain areas.

[Doobeedoo]

It's a pretty good card and that TDP cut