• 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

As I mentioned above, the Nano out the box is basically like a tiny 390x that's only consume max 175W that's fairly quiet according to review.

If people are willing to trade those benefits for more performance instead, all they have to do is raise the power limit, and they would have a card that is pretty much 95-97% of Fury X's performance.
 
Poneros said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you're the kind to care about power efficiency, they are binned cores and beat out nVidias offerings in FPS/Watt. Personally I don't care about that though.

However, cost is always relevant - your own argument saying cost isn't relevant concludes it cost too much on launch! Price matching a 980 I'd pick the Nano every time. Having said that, I would go a 970 or 390 over either on a value for money basis, but there is a market at that price point anyway and for that market the £400 Nano fits.
 
Last edited:
Avenged7Fold said:
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?
Click to expand...

No actually, Quite literally it uses half the gRAM to do the same work, If one game is flying along at 60 fps and using 5gb of gRAM on say a GDDR5 980ti, The Fury X is hitting the same FPS but using 2.5-3gb of it's HBM.

There's technical presentations in the Fury/X/Nano owners threads. I have a few memories of compressions and optimisations but essentially it's a very different technology that excels at very high resolutions.
 
Last edited:
layte said:
That still shows the standard and therefore Nano as behind (and lets not get into the whole thing about any 980ti being able to match the Lightning base clocks). Why did you feel the need to lie in your original post? That just puts doubt on anything further you post as you purposely went out of your way to misinform people.
Click to expand...

FFS I knew I would get a bite :rolleyes:

1. I wasn't talking about the Nano. Some one asked me how my card performs at 4k.

2. I specifically said, and I quote -

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

So no, let's not go there with a stupid "only on OCUK" argument.
 
TheMorningStar said:
No actually, Quite literally it uses half the gRAM to do the same work, If one game is flying along at 60 fps and using 5gb of gRAM on say a GDDR5 980ti, The Fury X is hitting the same FPS but using 2.5-3gb of it's HBM.

There's technical presentations in the Fury/X/Nano owners threads. I have a few memories of compressions and optimisations but essentially it's a very different technology that excels at very high resolutions.
Click to expand...

You definitely cant compare usage between a ti and fury. The more Vram available, the more that a game will use even at the same settings, regardless of whether it is HMB or not. If what you said is true, every game where a furyx would use more than 2gb (which is practically every game) a 980 would fall flat on its face. There have even been cases of crazy mods making fury hit 4gb limit while allowing a ti to run as normal. By your logic, it should be the Ti to give out first. HMB helps VRAM usage in many ways but not in every way.

I have no doubt the fury comes with enough VRAM but your explanation of using a literal amount of VRAM relative to a non HMB card cant be right. With that logic, the Fury would never run out of VRAM before a Ti and though we know that a fury running out would only be rare, it is definitely not unheard of.

Also if you were correct, it would be proportional irrespective of resolution, where we actually see the nano/fury usage increase just a little going from 1440p to 4k, where as it seems to have very similar usage to the Ti up until 4k.

I dont think you can compare Ti and Fury RAM numbers and come out with any ratio which applies. I dont see why things like frame buffering and such would feel the benefit of the larger bus.
 
Last edited:
Nice price drop. Had a Nano until last week but sold it after putting it under water and the coil whine became more pronounced.

Lovely little card, and as noted even with the stock cooler it runs very quiet (aside from the whine). Overclocked and under water after benching and in games I was often ahead of the scores I got with my Sapphire Tri-X fury which was nice for such a tiny package.

Will pick one up again with the price drop and which will have made some money as I sold the Nano for more then the price it appears it may drop down to :D

Did not have any issues with regards to Vram when I plugged it into my main 3440 x 1440 monitor and played pretty well at that resolution. Seem to come above most GTX 980's in the Tomb raider thread I posted the result in which is pretty neat for such a little card.
 
I see everone on the AMD side is wilfully ignoring the fact that you can get out-of-the-box clocked 980ti's that run over 20% higher than the reference models being used to make their case of "I don't overclock my cards so I made the right purchase if I stick my head in the sand"
 
andybird123 said:
I see everone on the AMD side is wilfully ignoring the fact that you can get out-of-the-box clocked 980ti's that run over 20% higher than the reference models being used to make their case of "I don't overclock my cards so I made the right purchase if I stick my head in the sand"
Click to expand...


By the looks of it it needs that, at least, and the Fury-X overclocks too, not much granted but the performance you see there is not the most it will do.
 
Lols, bad ALXAndy, getting wrapped over the knuckles for answering a question without adding an apparent need of persuading anyone to choose anything.:p

OcUK forum FTW.:D
 
ALXAndy said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you're saying isn't true, this isn't limited to large itx, unless you consider the Ncase M1 large itx. Or the upcoming https://www.dan-cases.com/dana4.php They can all fit in 980ti's in, so where's the advantage for the Nano?


ALXAndy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really making a price analysis so much as emphasizing that the Nano's lacking in too many areas. What I said was, even if price wasn't a consideration (i.e. if it would have an advantage in other areas then the price could be justified) you'd have a hard time to argue in favour of it based on other factors. Once you also factor in price, the case is even clearer (but the argument against it can be made regardless).
 
Cases like that can fit them in, and its great PR for the manufacture to be able to say "we can fit 10"+ cards into our micro cases" but in reality just how practical is it for the card to take up 40% of the case volume?

Doesn't leave a lot of room for airflow, for anything to breath, especially with huge a 250 Watt card.

I can build my 4690K into a pencil case, wouldn't trust using it.

 
Last edited:
Poneros said:
The case works perfectly fine (i.e. no throttling). Results speak for themselves: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1389-page1.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course

System Configuration:

Intel Core i5-2500K processor - 3.3GHz, 32nm, 95W
Scythe Samurai ZZ CPU cooler - stock fan at 9V/1800 RPM
Asus P8H67-I Deluxe motherboard - H67 chipset
ASUS Radeon EAH6850 DirectCU graphics card
Kingston ValueRAM SODIMM memory - 2x2GB, DDR3-1333
Seagate Barracuda XT hard drive - 2TB, 7200 RPM, 64MB cache
SilverStone ST45SF-G - SFX power supply - 450W, 80 Plus Gold, modular
Microsoft Windows 7 operating system - Ultimate, 64-bit
--------

GPU temp still got to 88c....
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
GPU temp still got to 88c....
Click to expand...

Ayfkpuu.png


Ti's fine on an open bench:D
 
layte said:
Are you saying you wilfully set out to cause a response by posting misleading information? There's a word commonly used to describe that type of behaviour.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I just knew I'd get set upon for daring to answer a straightforward question.

I'm not even going to say anything else given most of what I've said has been twisted or taken completely out of context.

Start a new thread and argue with yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom