AMD Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

mmj_uk · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:07

As expected it's just another trophy card so that AMD can claim to have the worlds fastest SFF GPU, even though by design it's priced at a point where nobody in their right mind will buy it.

nails666 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:08

Hmm, very attractive pricing there then... For that money why would anyone pick a Nano over a regular Fury X for anything other than the absolute smallest of mITX cases?

Jono8 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:08

What a bizarre release.

humbug · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:10

Gregster said:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review,1.html

Fractionally behind a Fury and 80 Watts less power, uses even less power than a 280X and a 780.

Thats actually really good.

Jono8 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:10

But then you have to ask.. what is the point in the Fury X?

mmj_uk · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:12

humbug said:
Fractionally behind a Fury and 80 Watts less power.

Thats actually really good.

Except when you put it in actual ITX case where airflow is rather limited it'll throttle.

Jono8 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:14

Do any of the reviews actually review it whilst it is in an ITX case (ie what it was designed for)?

mmj_uk · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:16

Jono8 said:
But then you have to ask.. what is the point in the Fury X?

The question is the other way around for me, what is the point in the Nano? you put it in a tiny case with poor cooling and it'll throttle.. so then you upgrade your ITX case to something slightly bigger to increase airflow but then at that point you'd might as well just get a case that will accommodate a Fury X.

These reviews on an open test bench are ridiculous, were they part of the conditions of getting a review sample or something?

humbug · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:16

mmj_uk said:
Except when you put it in actual ITX case where aiflow is rather limited it'll throttle.

Thats a none argument as its the same with any card, it also depends on the quality of the case.

joeyjojo · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:16

Gregster said:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review,1.html

Excuse me I've been under a rock, but...

8.19 TFLOPS with a TDP of 175 W??? That's sensational. :eek:

That's 33% more compute power than a Titan X with 30% less power draw!

And people aren't impressed with this thing?

Edit: looks like the drivers have a long way to go to get high utilisation on the Fury range..

Pelinox · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:21

Will there be custom cooled cards, or are these the only ones we'll see?

Gregster · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:21

joeyjojo said:
Excuse me I've been under a rock, but...

8.19 TFLOPS with a TDP of 175 W??? That's sensational.

That's 33% more compute power than a Titan X with 30% less power draw!

And people aren't impressed with this thing?

It beats a 980 in games, so yer it is impressive but the price, THE PRICE :eek:

humbug · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:22

joeyjojo said:
Excuse me I've been under a rock, but...

8.19 TFLOPS with a TDP of 175 W??? That's sensational.

That's 33% more compute power than a Titan X with 30% less power draw!

And people aren't impressed with this thing?

As a compute card the Fury-X blows the Titan-X out of the water for raw performance and power-consumption.

This thing is mind-blowing but no one in here cares about that

ALXAndy · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:24

Good show.

TheRealDeal · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:26

Gregster said:
It beats a 980 in games, so yer it is impressive but the price, THE PRICE

This card is the Titan X of the SFF. There should be a market for people who want fast and small. I prefer big myself but people who go to Lans might just eat some of these up. Only been to a few myself and would have loved to be taking a small powerful pc instead of the full tower.

mmj_uk · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:27

joeyjojo said:
Excuse me I've been under a rock, but...

8.19 TFLOPS with a TDP of 175 W??? That's sensational.

That's 33% more compute power than a Titan X with 30% less power draw!

And people aren't impressed with this thing?

Edit: looks like the drivers have a long way to go to get high utilisation on the Fury range..

It's only theoretical, if you actually hammered the card with compute it'll probably throttle clockspeed and the TFLOPS will be significantly reduced. That's why Fury/FuryX are still better for raw performance.

UTmaniac · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:27

LE-FISH said:
I'll be getting two of them! To replace my two R9 290s. Thanks for the info, Boomstick777

BTW, who is Gibbo? xD

So I take it you bought the first two sold already?

Or are you currently raiding your nearest bank to get the funds?

Gregster · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:28

TheRealDeal said:
This card is the Titan X of the SFF. There should be a market for people who want fast and small. I prefer big myself but people who go to Lans might just eat some of these up. Only been to a few myself and would have loved to be taking a small powerful pc instead of the full tower.

The Asian market should love these, as I read a while back that they are more tuned to things getting smaller. 2 sold in 30 mins just tells me that it isn't really floating boats in this country.

Marine-RX179 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:28

humbug said:
As a compute card the Fury-X blows the Titan-X out of the water for raw performance and power-consumption.

This thing is mind-blowing but no one in here cares about that

The compute capabability is only important to be mentioned when Nvidia is beating AMD on it (much like the importance of lower power consumption and noise-level

).

pgi947 · 10 Sep 2015 at 13:29

The performance to power is good, but not £550+ good. It's target market is the itx crowd, why on earth someone would stump up near twice the price for this rather then clocking the hell out of a 970 is beyond me, even the fury x becomes a better option for itx provided you have a spare 120mm mount.

Furthermore, if amd can get this perf v power ratio on the nano, why haven't they scaled this up on a bigger card to 250w+ and blown Maxwell out of the water?

Not so much disappointed, but certainly puzzled.