AMD Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

[Seanspeed]

To be honest, there's no single card that does 4K really well unless you start dropping settings, which kinda defeats the point of going 4K to supposedly get a better image quality

4K is the new buzzword and both sides are guilty of overusing it imo

I would gladly jump to 4k if all I had to do was drop some settings. I sit fairly close to a 27" monitor, so aliasing IQ and clarity is something I've grown to particularly value.

Generally agree, though. I don't think 4k is still that viable with any single GPU unless you're ok with 30fps. Which I'm not. I think even these top range 980Ti's and Fury cards are really only breaking into the 1440p/60fps territory with any real comfort.

 

[Boomstick777]

Yeah this does seem to be billed as a 4K enabling miniITX card for tiny tiny cases. Not a mainstream card expected to do huge numbers, as 4K users are a very small niche of the market right now. I'm sure pricing will come down over time as availability improves. There is hardly any Fiji stock so keeping prices high makes sense, i.e it would be worse for AMD if pricing was great but cards not available. It's not a great situation either way, all time low market share and stock etc.

 

[Gerard]

Pc per has a preview on it, $649 according to them but apparently a lot of stock for launch.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Preview-Small-Stature-Big-Performance

 

[rtho782]

Lol at that pic, you could do an itx build with a Fury X easily, and the case on the left is just full of empty space.

That said, the R9 Nano is impressive. According to Anandtech it will be TDP limited so will average around 900mhz in games, still impressive but at the same price as the Fury X I would buy the X every time.

It's a massively impressive demonstration of what can be done though.

If only AMD had seen fit to outfit the Fury with HDMI2.0 this would have been an amazing little card, but a miniitx 4k PC is one to be connected to a TV, with no way of connecting to the TV in this case.

 

[nashathedog]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9564/amd-announces-radeon-r9-nano-shipping-september-10th

According to AMD the card should generally sustain clockspeeds around 900MHZ and boost in less intensive times to around 1GHZ. So the,Fury X should be around 10% to 15% faster overall,so it will be close to an R9 Fury but in a mini-ITX form factor.

Looking at the latest TPU figures in their GTX950 reviews,it should place it overall faster than a GTX980 it appears:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_950_Gaming/30.html

However,I think AMD should have priced this closer to £400ish,or not more than £450 at the most,and thats taking into account the smaller form factor when compared to the GTX980 and the "newness" tax.

Having said that it is one of the few graphics cards I have been excited about for a few years,the other being the mini-ITX GTX970. Shame its way above what I would be willing to spend.

This is what had me annoyed, they can't really justify charging us 450 quid for a cut down Fiji Fury if there offering a full Fiji Nano for less.

 

[nashathedog]

Yer, Fury is a good move for your system and I can't help but think of what is what with this only having an 8 pin connector onboard and someone mentioned it not being Crossfire capable (not sure if that is correct).

If you read AMD's release info Point 15 say's the card is not capable of crossfire at this time.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Pc per has a preview on it, $649 according to them but apparently a lot of stock for launch.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Preview-Small-Stature-Big-Performance

so they been hoarding the chips, now we know why the FXs are non existant then.

 

[Boomstick777]

(Update: AMD claims the R9 Nano will be on store shelves on September 10th and should have "critical mass" of availability.)

additional information from AMD on this topic. Depending the workload (dependent on the game) AMD claims that the R9 Nano GPU clock will "settle" on an average somewhere between 800 MHz and 1000 MHz

the GPU will not be thermally constrained until it hits 85C and clocks wouldn't be throttled until that point.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Preview-Small-Stature-Big-Performance

 

[Seanspeed]

85C is relatively low, but it's understandable.

 

[Gerard]

Kinda blows some smoke in the face of those that were adamant that the only reason fury x had a water cooler was because it NEEDED one. Obviously that's not the case considering how basic the cooler on the nano is and its not even running that much slower.

 

[Davedree]

Kinda blows some smoke in the face of those that were adamant that the only reason fury x had a water cooler was because it NEEDED one. Obviously that's not the case considering how basic the cooler on the nano is and its not even running that much slower.

If you underclock and undervolt the 4096 card then it's fine. You still need a coolant cooler if you wish to scale over 1100mhz and using over 1.25v.
Look at the vrm temps of fury 3584 on stock 1.25v to see that there is little headroom without a very good cooler.

 

[Tetsu]

That pic is crying out for some poorly done photo shop

etc

 

[Boomstick777]

85C is relatively low, but it's understandable.

85C is a nice place to start throttling. Really wouldn't want a GPU running much hotter than that..

Kinda blows some smoke in the face of those that were adamant that the only reason fury x had a water cooler was because it NEEDED one. Obviously that's not the case considering how basic the cooler on the nano is and its not even running that much slower.

Ha, true. Those guys will find something else to moan about now though, and not acknowledge that point at all. Ignorance is bliss

 

[varkanoid]

To be honest, there's no single card that does 4K really well unless you start dropping settings, which kinda defeats the point of going 4K to supposedly get a better image quality

4K is the new buzzword and both sides are guilty of overusing it imo

Look at the FPS. Above 50fps is pretty good for 4k. It shows the Nano achieving this. It puts it on a par with the 980ti with those figures.

IMHO the 980ti makes a very good stab at 4k.

 

[Tetsu]

Last one

OK I'm done on with the thread

P.S I like AMD as much as Nvidia maybe even more

 

[Davedree]

85C is a nice place to start throttling. Really wouldn't want a GPU running much hotter than that..



Ha, true. Those guys will find something else to moan about now though, and not acknowledge that point at all. Ignorance is bliss

Lol so have you or anyone taken off a fury x pcb and put it onto the sapphire fury 3584 cooler. Then unlocked the voltage and checked for core temps, and vrm temps whilst attempting to clock over 1150mhz and greater than 1.3v

 

[Boomstick777]

Last one

Spoiler

OK I'm done on with the thread

Lol

 

[mmj_uk]

additional information from AMD on this topic. Depending the workload (dependent on the game) AMD claims that the R9 Nano GPU clock will "settle" on an average somewhere between 800 MHz and 1000 MHz

*cough* variance *cough*.

I bet reviewers get cherry picked ones that boost to 1000mhz whilst retail model barely scrape 900mhz.

 

[pmc25]

so they been hoarding the chips, now we know why the FXs are non existant then.

They've been 'hoarding' Fiji chips, HBM and PCBs, yes. Not for this launch, but because UMC only began ramping up production of the interposers in late July. The reason for lack of Fury X and Fury availability is because there was only a trickle of interposers being made. Availability for all 3 Fiji SKUs should be much better from mid September because they now have interposers to assemble the product.

 

[Tetsu]

Lol

Snip

LOL

OK truly last