AMD Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

[D.P.]

I like the idea of the Nano it's the one I'd buy, but I expect it will be too expensive and I have waited and waited for it, I fear the 970 itx could be a better alternative. The performance/watt of the Nano compared to the 290x could just be Amd marketing guff (similar to overclockers dream) if they compare the Nano to the 290x ref card using old drivers and high voltage+ throttling.

The x2 card looks to be dual Nano as it only has 2x 8-pin connectors.

Whenever AMD or NVidia or Intel make such graphs they always choose settings which makes their card looks the best or g shows the msot progress. They will test like 20-30 games and pick the 7-10 that give the best performance, and will spends ages tweaking and tweaking the settings. With the FuryX AMD performance slides there were lots of funny setting used, like turning AF off, 2XAA, medium settings.



The above AMD performance graphs are probably at 4K resolutions with some other oddities. That is fine, everyone plays that game. You just have to remember to take a bucket of salt with you when viewing their PR.

 

[Davedree]

According to the footnotes slide in the article, the power efficiency they use is measured by memory GB/s of bandwidth, but then the same footnote mentioneds 10.66 GB/s vs 35+GB/s which isn't really relevant to the graph at all.

Well spotted Bru, I didn't see the 2nd slide. Seems they used 15.20 on fc4. Smells like guff similar to the introduced the fps/inch metric. Unless the slides are fake?

 

[Davedree]

Agreed, pricing will make or break it. I'm sure it will be a great card just like like Fury X and Fury, but pricing will decide whether it's worth considering VS Nvidia's alternatives.

If pricing is ok I'll pick one up for my boys MITX build. Obviously I will have a play with it first and see what it can do

Yeah me too, I've held out on my 7950 until now.
I've been offered a 970 for a good price, but I just want to see the Nano actually reviewed and price and spec confirmed.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Nears Launch, 50% Higher Performance per Watt over Fury X



http://www.techpowerup.com/215486/a...-higher-performance-per-watt-over-fury-x.html

LOL, no way is it faster than the 290X, it would have to be clocked north of 1040

 

[D.P.]

Well spotted Bru, I didn't see the 2nd slide. Seems they used 15.20 on fc4. Smells like guff similar to the introduced the fps/inch metric. Unless the slides are fake?

I liked the 390X grpahs, twice as good as a 980X because it has twice the memory.

Strange they didn't use the smae marketing material for the FuryX against the 980Ti and TX

 

[flopper]

Have to be at 400euro here to be a deal.
cant buy these cards to OC at all so better be priced properly.

 

[bru]

LOL, no way is it faster than the 290X, it would have to be clocked north of 1040

Look at the graph again, the scale indicates maybe 2/3 FPs faster in FC4 at what must be 4k, for the fury to only be getting 40+ FPS. quite possible for a single benchmark. Just bear in mind that is the cherriest pick of their own marketing, I definitely wouldn't expect that sort of performance overall.

 

[JediFragger]

What's up AMD, no fps per mm???

 

[TheMorningStar]

Look at the graph again, the scale indicates maybe 2/3 FPs faster in FC4 at what must be 4k, for the fury to only be getting 40+ FPS. quite possible for a single benchmark. Just bear in mind that is the cherriest pick of their own marketing, I definitely wouldn't expect that sort of performance overall.

It'll be in 4k best place for that HBM to pull ahead, may not be just one game, could be the amalgamated scores of many games.

 

[bru]

It'll be in 4k best place for that HBM to pull ahead, may not be just one game, could be the amalgamated scores of many games.

Or of course you could actually look at the article, where the footnote 3 slide clearly states it is in far cry 4 on a Intel 5960 at 3001MHz and 15.20 beta drivers.

 

[TheMorningStar]

Or of course you could actually look at the article, where the footnote 3 slide clearly states it is in far cry 4 on a Intel 5960 at 3001MHz and 15.20 beta drivers.

Nah, where's the fun in that

 

[nashathedog]

In Far cry 4 my 290x was an awful performer and my Fury Tri-x practically doubles it's performance so seeing these results with the Nano a few frames ahead of the 290x in that one title hints to extreme result cherry picking. I'm not expecting the Nano to be a fast card.

Here's a copy paste of my post on page 3 of the Fury owners thread when I tested the game on the two cards:

"The 290x's performance was between 30 and 40 at 1080p while the Fury does the same settings between 70 and 80 at 1440p".

Hawaii seemed to hate Far cry 4 for some reason (probably Nvidia's fault ) so if it's not fake and they are using Far cry 4 as an example of the Nano's performance and all it can manage is a 3 or 4 frame leap I wouldn't go expecting 290x beating performance very often.

 

[Boomstick777]

 

[P.B]

doesn't look very promising to be honest I hope the nest gen can be as good as the 290 series

 

[humbug]

LOL, no way is it faster than the 290X, it would have to be clocked north of 1040

Well, No. the Fury-X is already clocked at 1050Mhz, Fury-Nano would be clocked at around 850Mhz.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Well, No. the Fury-X is already clocked at 1050Mhz, Fury-Nano would be clocked at around 850Mhz.

Yep, so be around 970 performance, lower.

 

[humbug]

Yep, so be around 970 performance, lower.

I'm not so sure the performance strangling thought with Fiji would be anywhere as near as apparent with a low clocked Fiji as its not as fast as the Fury-X to start with.

@ 1080P the Fury-X is 20% faster than the 290X, reduce the clock speed by 20% to make Fury-Nano and they should perform a bit higher than a 290X as DX11 Driver overheads are also less of an issue.
Its like the gain you would get from overclocking a 290x by 10 or 15%

Don't forget Fiji has 45% more Shaders than Hawaii.

 

[varkanoid]

Spoiler

Someday all cards will be this size or less.....

Does it mean if say a 750ti style card (ie a sub £130 type 1750ti or whatever with HBM mem as its now cheap enough) is produced in a couple of years time it will be tiny tiny tiny you cant see it ?

 

[humbug]

Someday all cards will be this size or less.....

Does it mean if say a 750ti style card (ie a sub £130 type 1750ti or whatever with HBM mem as its now cheap enough) is produced in a couple of years time it will be tiny tiny tiny you cant see it ?

The card of this card is fine but i don't want them to get too small, i'm not with this obsession to make everythng as small as humanely possible just for the sake of making it small.

If call me old fashioned but i'm paying £300 for a GPU i want it to be something that i call hold in my hand, inspect it, feel its wight, not place it down next to me and then lose it, never to be seen again because a light breeze pushed it into the weave of the carpet.

 

[Boomstick777]

The card of this card is fine but i don't want them to get too small, i'm not with this obsession to make everythng as small as humanely possible just for the sake of making it small.

If call me old fashioned but i'm paying £300 for a GPU i want it to be something that i call hold in my hand, inspect it, feel its wight, not place it down next to me and then lose it, never to be seen again because a light breeze pushed it into the weave of the carpet.

I'm looking forward to everything shrinking down. One day I want a tiny tiny PC with an all in one chip that's capable of high res gaming while using lil power and only need one cooler, or even better passive cooling

I will be waiting a long long time lol.