• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

R9 Nano £499 -> £399

Are you gaming at 4k if so what games and what FPS do you get?

You want me to write you a review? why not just go and look at the many out there. Here, I will save you the trouble. Latest drivers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...-new-fiji-graphics-card-beats-nvidias-980-ti/



Of course the 980ti can be overclocked but I don't overclock my GPUs as I have lost a couple in the past so I don't bother any more. But if 4gb of HBM was not enough then there is no way the card would perform like that at 4k.

And of course I am ignoring all other resolutions because I don't run them.
 
How does it use half the amount when it comes to cache-ing high res textures and stuff? I would imagine a mod in a game like skyrim would not benefit from HMB

I agree 4gb on the fury/nano is plenty but your explaination is a bit....

Like, are you comparing bandwidth?
 
Last edited:
You want me to write you a review? why not just go and look at the many out there. Here, I will save you the trouble. Latest drivers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...-new-fiji-graphics-card-beats-nvidias-980-ti/



Of course the 980ti can be overclocked but I don't overclock my GPUs as I have lost a couple in the past so I don't bother any more. But if 4gb of HBM was not enough then there is no way the card would perform like that at 4k.

And of course I am ignoring all other resolutions because I don't run them.

Thats a pretty good showing, anyone reasonably minded woukld give the Fury-X a clear win here.
 
How does it use half the amount when it comes to cached frames?

I agree 4gb on the fury/nano is plenty but your explaination is a bit....

Like, are you comparing bandwidth?
I guess what he meant is that we shouldn't compare memory usage when the two memory design and architecture are not the same, similar to like we shouldn't really be comparing using the "spec" when comparing GPU or CPU of difference architectures.

Apple to orange comparison I suppose.
 
So am I right in saying a Nano 4GB + FreeSync monitor you would get the same experience as a GTX980 Ti + Gsysc monitor for a lot less money?

I'm looking to upgrade to 1440p gaming and if the above is true I might just get a Nano!

You want me to write you a review? why not just go and look at the many out there. Here, I will save you the trouble. Latest drivers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...-new-fiji-graphics-card-beats-nvidias-980-ti/



Of course the 980ti can be overclocked but I don't overclock my GPUs as I have lost a couple in the past so I don't bother any more. But if 4gb of HBM was not enough then there is no way the card would perform like that at 4k.

And of course I am ignoring all other resolutions because I don't run them.


Thats a Fury X not a Nano
 
Thats a pretty good showing, anyone reasonably minded woukld give the Fury-X a clear win here.

It's not just those games either. The Fury X pulls ahead in Fallout 4, too.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/fallout_4_-_amd_vs_nvidia_performance_review/6

At 4k obviously.

This was using the Betas just before Crimson. Sadly Crimson doesn't like my rig very much so I had to back pedal but AMD have really been working hard on improving performance.

Unlike overclocking I kinda knew this would happen long before it did. AMD always seem to do it :)

So am I right in saying a Nano 4GB + FreeSync monitor you would get the same experience as a GTX980 Ti + Gsysc monitor for a lot less money?

I'm looking to upgrade to 1440p gaming and if the above is true I might just get a Nano!

Yup you're 100% bang on. Contrary to what has been said in this thread by the Nvidia fans Nano is quite a spectacular feat. Cramming that much performance and HBM onto a card that small is nothing short of miraculous. I don't see any Nvidia 980s achieving the same dimensions.

Price of the Nano though? well I have been looking to get one to Crossfire with my X but AMD got the price about as wrong as wrong can be. That's why I have held off. When they start dipping down to sub £400 (say £380) I will definitely be in.

Fury X should never have been released as AIO only and should have been £50 cheaper than the 980ti and the Fury Nano should have price matched the 980 or maybe a hair more. Then they'd have flown out of OCUK like crap through a goose. Instead AMD decided to play the Nvidia price game and well, here we are.

It's a shame.
 
Last edited:
It's not just those games either. The Fury X pulls ahead in Fallout 4, too.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/fallout_4_-_amd_vs_nvidia_performance_review/6

At 4k obviously.

This was using the Betas just before Crimson. Sadly Crimson doesn't like my rig very much so I had to back pedal but AMD have really been working hard on improving performance.

Unlike overclocking I kinda knew this would happen long before it did. AMD always seem to do it :)

Personally i think thier GPU architecture is usually more powerful, they just don't have the skill Nvidia have with Drivers who are able to get more out of thier GPU's with them.

Usually AMD do gradually improve thier Drivers, so the GPU's mature like a fine wine.

Look at Hawaii, not so long ago Hawaii-XT was trailing the GTX 970 badley, now its a dead match for the GTX 980.....
 
Hmmmm Im intrigues about this HBM memory, going to read up on it. If I can get +60fps in games life BF4 with everything on Ultra (maybe AA down a bit) with a Nano I might just get one with a cheap FreeSync monitor.
 
I recently have tried out freesync with one of those beautiful 21:9 screens. I must say that i am in love. I would turn down 4k any day of the week for a 3440 21:9, that ratio is perfect for the games i play and for movie watching.
 
I recently have tried out freesync with one of those beautiful 21:9 screens. I must say that i am in love. I would turn down 4k any day of the week for a 3440 21:9, that ratio is perfect for the games i play and for movie watching.

In hindsight I would not have gone 4k until next year when Pascal and the new AMD cards come out with twice the performance of what we have now.

But I went with a £500 monitor and so it stays.

Once Nano drops to what it's worth to me I will be buying one.
 
They're identical apart from the clocks dude. Exactly the same technology core and memory.

A few people have been able to overclock them to match a Fury X.

Naahhh not quite, i think, Nano is AMD's first GPU with on-die voltage regulators, like Maxwell, hence part of the reason for the 175 TDP. its actually quicker than a GTX 980 with similar power consumption.
 
Last edited:
So am I right in saying a Nano 4GB + FreeSync monitor you would get the same experience as a GTX980 Ti + Gsysc monitor for a lot less money?

I'm looking to upgrade to 1440p gaming and if the above is true I might just get a Nano!




Thats a Fury X not a Nano
Nano out of the box has a 175W TDP, and performance wise it is around 980 level, but faster than it at 4K. The slower speed is due to the card will throttle the clock speed by design to keep within the TDP/voltage envelope.

Once the Nano has the power limit increase, the clock speed will pretty much stay at the max clock at all time (but at the cost of higher power consumption thus higher temp and noise), and it would be more or less at around 95-97% of the Fury X's performance.
 
In hindsight I would not have gone 4k until next year when Pascal and the new AMD cards come out with twice the performance of what we have now.

But I went with a £500 monitor and so it stays.

Once Nano drops to what it's worth to me I will be buying one.

Considered buying one but i bought into a few 290x's on release day for benching and now i am working more in IT i have left benching alone this release. If there are any game changers next year, i will probably give it a go and grab a 3440 120hz. For me, the gpu grunt is not the main issue with 4k, its just that i dont think i can go back to normal widescreen xD

For RPGs, FPS and RTS 21:9 is what i need!
 
Nano out of the box has a 175W TDP, and performance wise it is around 980 level, but faster than it at 4K. The slower speed is due to the card will throttle the clock speed by design to keep within the TDP/voltage envelope.

Once the Nano has the power limit increase, the clock speed will pretty much stay at the max clock at all time (but at the cost of higher power consumption thus higher temp and noise), and it would be more or less at around 95-97% of the Fury X's performance.

I see, Im looking at Fury X reviews at the moment.
 
Really the problem with Nano wasn't the price so much, though that obviously is important, but the fact that there are very few cases where the size of the Nano is a definite advantage. In fact, for most itx cases you can fit in even a Fury (!) but more importantly also a 980 ti or 390, etc. So the size advantage is.. almost moot. It's cool to look at, sure, but not that important ultimately. Now how does the smaller size translate into temps, airflow & noise? Answer is, not very well either. The Nano is quite loud (and whiny) and temps aren't much better than other cards nor the air flow either. And as far as performance goes, while it performs well it's significantly slower than a 980 ti or even a Fury X (which has problems itself because hybrid solutions for mini-itx have their own obvious downside - fitting it the fan), while something like a 390 Nitro can generally do within ~10% of it in most scenarios in mini-itx for the most popular cases. So with the nano you get neither great value nor great performance nor silence.

So besides the coolness factor why pay so much for a Nano? Answer, not much reason at all, hence why so few sell.
 
I think the Nano is AMD's 750TI, the first in a new way to regulate its power consumption, its experimental. i doubt they are expecting to sell a lot of them, they just want to learn from it before rolling the technology out across the range.
 
Last edited:
Really the problem with Nano wasn't the price so much, though that obviously is important, but the fact that there are very few cases where the size of the Nano is a definite advantage. In fact, for most itx cases you can fit in even a Fury (!) but more importantly also a 980 ti or 390, etc. So the size advantage is.. almost moot. It's cool to look at, sure, but not that important ultimately. Now how does the smaller size translate into temps, airflow & noise? Answer is, not very well either. The Nano is quite loud (and whiny) and temps aren't much better than other cards nor the air flow either. And as far as performance goes, while it performs well it's significantly slower than a 980 ti or even a Fury X (which has problems itself because hybrid solutions for mini-itx have their own obvious downside - fitting it the fan), while something like a 390 Nitro can generally do within ~10% of it in most scenarios in mini-itx for the most popular cases. So with the nano you get neither great value nor great performance nor silence.

So besides the coolness factor why pay so much for a Nano? Answer, not much reason at all, hence why so few sell.

If you use a large ITX case then yes, you can fit whatever you like. However, that usually defeats the object of ITX. Why have a tiny motherboard and so on and a huge GPU? you need the case space to hold it.

There are many, many ITX cases that are about half the length/depth of something like a Bitfenix Prodigy (which is quite massive) that in the past would limit you to the little Asus 670/970. And there was only one card like that and it was made by Asus and for what it was it was very expensive.

I don't agree with you about your price analysis either. It was far too expensive. Go and find the thread where Gibbo posted them when they first arrived. You will find nearly every one saying they were too expensive.

I'm not skint and due to not drinking/smoking/taking drugs/going out clubbing etc have quite a large disposable budget every month. I bought my Fury X from Gregster for £460 during launch week, yet still have not bought a second card to go with it due to pricing. If it were sub £400 at launch I would have one now.

I just refuse to pay more money than I paid for my Fury X in order to get one. AMD's pricing has been an utter, utter joke. They release a whole bunch of cards that are sub Nvidia performance for the same price or more. It was never going to work.
 
Back
Top Bottom