AMD Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

[humbug]

Faster card costs more!

It will also get a LOT faster over time whereas the mITX 970 will get slower.

Don't say that, i'll get all defensive........

 

[bru]

Faster card costs more!

It will also get a LOT faster over time whereas the mITX 970 will get slower.

We all understand the point your trying to make, about Fiji's performance being utilised more in the future.
But to say it will be a LOT faster over time and the 970 will get slower is just plain wrong.

I would submit that the 970 is a mid range card now and as such it's performance will remain as such, much as previous midrange cards have, where as the Fiji cards with their 4GB of ram and probably aggressive memory management in the AMD drivers will be left way behind as soon as AMD have their next range out next year with 8GB+ of HBM. that is of course if the company lasts that long.

 

[nashathedog]

CrossFire will work as it normally does.

So the Nano does crossfire and I misread AMD's footnotes? Number 15.

 

[pmc25]

I thought AMD said no non reference FuryX's, I haven't seen any at all, please link to any you have seen, as I would love to see what others could do with it.

Unless they have yield issues with Fiji (which there has been no word of, unlike lack of interposers / HBM), then I'd be amazed if full die non-reference Fiji cards don't arrive at some point ... unless Arctic Islands is coming Q1 or early Q2 instead of late Q2 / E3.

 

[~Mike~]

So the Nano does crossfire and I misread AMD's footnotes? Number 15.

I think you have misread it.

 

[nashathedog]

I think you have misread it.

Looks like it.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

A gfx card that powerful, smaller than yer dick, thats impressive

 

[JediFragger]

A gfx card that powerful, smaller than yer dick, thats impressive

And if you're Mr Fassbender, that's on flop

 

[P.B]

any review on this yet ?

 

[JediFragger]

any review on this yet ?

10th Sept. Expect 8-10% lower fps than the FuryX

 

[P.B]

10th Sept. Expect 8-10% lower fps than the FuryX

surely it would be lower than that isn't that fury pro (none x) ?

 

[arcon33]

At a guess which would be better between the nano and fury pro? Slightly higher clocks v full chip. Should be interesting to see

 

[Radox-0]

I do wonder how this would perform with a waterblock. I am assuming the fact it can pull only so much power will still be a limitation, even if temps are fine.

 

[Gregster]

I do wonder how this would perform with a waterblock. I am assuming the fact it can pull only so much power will still be a limitation, even if temps are fine.

With 225W (it could possibly pull higher but the PCI-E and 8 pin combined = 225W) will deffo hold it back somewhat, regardless of temps.

 

[P.B]

and wouldn't having a water block defeat the idea of this card as you would just use a fury X ?

 

[Radox-0]

and wouldn't having a water block defeat the idea of this card as you would just use a fury X ?

You would have thought so, but this card is the exact length I was after in a mini ITX build. No space for the radiator as such in the case I have But not too sure if a waterblock will be made, because as you say, most will opt for the fury x most likely.

 

[Mtom]

Heatcam video

Seems topping out about 68C VRM is about the same

Idle video

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Heres its driver :-

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/R9FuryNano.aspx

 

[JediFragger]

Pity this thread has sank somewhat since the pricing was revealed!! Peeps were chomping at the bit before that

 

[FoxEye]

Pity this thread has sank somewhat since the pricing was revealed!! Peeps were chomping at the bit before that

It was a nice idea, but then they went and AMD'd it.

Soooo..... fingers crossed for Zen and Greenland. We're really talking last chance saloon here.