AMD Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

nashathedog · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:03

LoadsaMoney said:
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_radeon_r9_nano_in_da_house_%28in_house_photos%29.html

These pictures show us the exact problem we will have with review inaccuracies, Can anyone else see what they are?

Gibbo · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:08

LoadsaMoney said:
Already messed it up if the price is true, as 970s are way cheaper.

If its a fully enabled Figi according to Guru3D, making it same performance as Fury X, why would they price it at 970 levels?

Marine-RX179 · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:18

Gibbo said:
If its a fully enabled Figi according to Guru3D, making it same performance as Fury X, why would they price it at 970 levels?

Because there are those that believe shouting "Fury X is no faster than 970" enough times will make it true

meldarthx · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:22

Marine-RX179 said:
Because there are those that believe shouting "Fury X is no faster than 970" enough times will make it true

yea they need to stop trolling

Zaltan who's a known game developer that hangs out in a few forums stated while go just how fast they were and he didn't expect to seem them priced less than 650.

He's got access to one; says its easily within 10% speed of Fury X but so much less power.....as a developer he'd be buying several and so will others that work with him as there is no other card that can come pair to it.....then wouldn't say anything else on it.

Anandtechh forums...

mmj_uk · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:26

It can't be the same performance as Fury X due to the cooling and a likely TDP cap, it is bizarre that they are selling a full Fiji in such a card though as they'll have to price it at a point that makes it largely unattractive.

They'd have been better using those Nano dies in Fury Pro with a reduced clockspeed and using the cut down Fury pro chips in Nano, enabling them to better compete with GTX970 on price.

humbug · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:35

mmj_uk said:
It can't be the same performance as Fury X due to the cooling and a likely TDP cap, it is bizarre that they are selling a full Fiji in such a card though as they'll have to price it at a point that makes it largely unattractive.

They'd have been better using those Nano dies in Fury Pro with a reduced clockspeed and using the cut down Fury pro chips in Nano, enabling them to better compete with GTX970 on price.

The 390 already competes with the GTX 970.

No i think what AMD are doing is a good idea, if its capable of 90% the performance of a Fury-X with 50% - 60% the power consumption then i think AMD should keep it like that.

Boomstick777 · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:35

Marine-RX179 said:
Because there are those that believe shouting "Fury X is no faster than 970" enough times will make it true

Ha, so true the level of trolling here is getting ridiculous now.

Oh well keeps them happy I guess :rolleyes:

JediFragger · 3 Sep 2015 at 15:50

Gibbo said:
If its a fully enabled Figi according to Guru3D, making it same performance as Fury X, why would they price it at 970 levels?

Because at 1080p it's going to be only 10-15% out performance wise but close to double the cost. nVidia only need to counter with a decent clocked mITX 980 (at £100 less) and it's even-Stevens...

Marine-RX179 · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:03

humbug said:
The 390 already competes with the GTX 970.

No i think what AMD are doing is a good idea, if its capable of 90% the performance of a Fury-X with 50% - 60% the power consumption then i think AMD should keep it like that.

Also people keep on banging on dx11 performance comparison, but I got a feeling that when dx12 is in full swing, the Fury series will pull away from the 390 series cards, and the 390 series cards would in turn pull away from the 970, possibly exposing what Nvidia sacrificed in order to acheive the so-called "efficiency" for their mid-range Maxwell that they sold off as high-end.

mmj_uk · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:26

humbug said:
The 390 already competes with the GTX 970.

No i think what AMD are doing is a good idea, if its capable of 90% the performance of a Fury-X with 50% - 60% the power consumption then i think AMD should keep it like that.

Who would go with a 390 in a SFF system? they're longer than most cases and that's not even considering heat and noise.

I think some of you are missing the point that Nano is aimed at SFF users.

Ash0787 · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:28

In the video posted it looks like the fans are spinning backwards, that might be a trick of the camera though

970 can beat a Fury X in old unoptimized games that favour current nvidia hardware like Skyrim

I like fury x for the aesthetics, have you seen those pcb ? it looks very organized, also the LED are cool if you use a case window

nashathedog · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:50

mmj_uk said:
Who would go with a 390 in a SFF system? they're longer than most cases and that's not even considering heat and noise.

I think some of you are missing the point that Nano is aimed at SFF users.

Which is exactly why open bench reviews like Guru's are useless, You won't get too see how it's going to perform for you in a rig. Will it throttle will it downclock? Not in there review it won't which will paint it in the best light possible, There probably doing it to get back on AMD's good side after the 'I want too see it now but they won't let me rant' video they posted which lost them there Fury X release review opportunity (That was them wasn't it?)

humbug · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:53

mmj_uk said:
Who would go with a 390 in a SFF system? they're longer than most cases and that's not even considering heat and noise.

I think some of you are missing the point that Nano is aimed at SFF users.

Then AMD should get the Power consumption down for GPU's at that level, preferably without sacrificing any of its architectural features.

Marine-RX179 said:
Also people keep on banging on dx11 performance comparison, but I got a feeling that when dx12 is in full swing, the Fury series will pull away from the 390 series cards, and the 390 series cards would in turn pull away from the 970, possibly exposing what Nvidia sacrificed in order to acheive the so-called "efficiency" for their mid-range Maxwell that they sold off as high-end.

LoadsaMoney · 3 Sep 2015 at 16:57

Gibbo said:
If its a fully enabled Figi according to Guru3D, making it same performance as Fury X, why would they price it at 970 levels?

As it'll be around 970 performance, if the FX at 1050 core is around the 980, then the Nano at a lower core clock will be around the 970.

mmj_uk · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:01

humbug said:
Then AMD should get the Power consumption down for GPU's at that level, preferably without sacrificing any of its architectural features.

The main issue getting 390 the same size as 970/Nano will probably be that it has a 512bit memory bus which requires a bigger more complex PCB, if they knocked it down to 256bit like 970 and then reduce clockspeed/voltage to reduce TDP it'll no longer be as competitive anyway so they'd be wasting their time.

Nano should be a stripped down core (eg 3072 shaders) at similar price to 970, as it stands it's going to sell about as well as Fury X due to the price. It seems like AMD don't even want to sell Fiji based cards (and 390 series for that matter) the way they are going.

humbug · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:11

mmj_uk said:
The main issue getting 390 the same size as 970/Nano will probably be that it has a 512bit memory bus which requires a bigger more complex PCB, if they knocked it down to 256bit like 970 and then reduce clockspeed/voltage to reduce TDP it'll no longer be as competitive anyway so they'd be wasting their time.

Nano should be a stripped down core at similar price to 970, as it stands it's going to sell about as well as Fury X due to the price.

We will have to wait and see what AMD did with Nano and how they did it, i doubt just binning and reducing the clock speed is what has these things running sub 175 Watts, i think one of the leaks had the actual power consumption at around 150 to 160 Watts, which would make sense given that AMD treat TDP as it should be, a thermal dissipation guyed.

AMD do have some very clever power management systems in operation on other products, with them Carrizo uses half the power of Kaveri with higher performance.
We have yet to see that technology enter mainstream GPU's, hopefully Nano is the first of many.

FoxEye · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:27

Gibbo said:
If its a fully enabled Figi according to Guru3D, making it same performance as Fury X, why would they price it at 970 levels?

Um, why did you post that when you must know it cannot by any means be true?

You're smarter than that.

humbug · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:33

FoxEye said:
Um, why did you post that when you must know it cannot by any means be true?

You're smarter than that.

Meow.......

FoxEye · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:34

humbug said:
We will have to wait and see what AMD did with Nano and how they did it, i doubt just binning and reducing the clock speed is what has these things running sub 175 Watts, i think one of the leaks had the actual power consumption at around 150 to 160 Watts, which would make sense given that AMD treat TDP as it should be, a thermal dissipation guyed.

AMD do have some very clever power management systems in operation on other products, with them Carrizo uses half the power of Kaveri with higher performance.
We have yet to see that technology enter mainstream GPU's, hopefully Nano is the first of many.

Sorry mate, but if the Nano is the same performance as the FuryX, but due to more advanced technology needs only 60% of the power, then why release the FuryX...?

Everybody who is expecting this thing to be a FuryX performance whilst miraculously using almost half the power is drinking the AMD koolaid by the gallon.

I just makes absolutely zero sense to release a card like the FuryX in that case.

humbug · 3 Sep 2015 at 17:37

FoxEye said:
Sorry mate, but if the Nano is the same performance as the FuryX, but due to more advanced technology needs only 60% of the power, then why release the FuryX...?

Everybody who is expecting this thing to be a FuryX performance whilst miraculously using almost half the power is drinking the AMD koolaid by the gallon.

I just makes absolutely zero sense to release a card like the FuryX in that case.

Not "The same performance as Fury-X" i never said that but with a full fat Fiji chip it shouldn't be far off.