R9 Nano Review thread

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Why display just the 1080p graphs from Anand? The 4k results are much more relevant, or even the 1440. It performs it's best at 4k and it's higher in the rankins and they are even the first graphs Anand displays, it's like you have gone out of your way to show it perform at it's worse in an environment it isn't aimed at. Seriously?

It's like he cherry picked the results.
I'm basing this partly on the fact that the other graphs tell a different story and partly because just above the graph he said "Using cherry picked results".

Come on Greg, come clean, did you cherry pick the results?
TheMorningStar noticed your deception (that you pointed out), so you may as well fess up!

 

[savagesam117]

How is project cars running on the Fury X/Nano etc? Have they actually sorted it for AMD yet?

I seriously want a Nano!

 

[Joe!]

Yeah that definitely seemed light hearted and not so serious.

Are Anandtech known for that?

 

[JediFragger]

How is project cars running on the Fury X/Nano etc? Have they actually sorted it for AMD yet?

I think they're *still* working on it

 

[TheMorningStar]

Could at least cherry pick some bloody 4k results. Seems rather messed up to display the results of a resolution it's unlikely to be used at and bounce them on the initial post without any other results, that clearly doesn't aid ppl interested in the card.

 

[Scougar]

It's like he cherry picked the results.
I'm basing this partly on the fact that the other graphs tell a different story and partly because just above the graph he said "Using cherry picked results".

Come on Greg, come clean, did you cherry pick the results?
TheMorningStar noticed your deception (that you pointed out), so you may as well fess up!

He was being sarcastic/funny with it, as people (or one in particular, who was bashing him for his alleged bias towards Nvidia). Greg was being blatantly mocking with it, and was not intended to be taken any other way.

 

[Kaapstad]

Lol shocking, I wish I had grid autosport to test.

You need 8XMSAA @2160p to get rid of the jaggies.

 

[TheMorningStar]

He was being sarcastic/funny with it, as people (or one in particular, who was bashing him for his alleged bias towards Nvidia). Greg was being blatantly mocking with it, and was not intended to be taken any other way.

I was actually referring to the first page of the nano review thread, not the post where he makes a cherry picked comment, I'm thinking people think I'm referring to that. The very first page to greet people has only 1080p results posted after the video reviews.

it's a pretty counter intuitive mistake to make especially given Anands placement of the graphs which places the 4k results first. I do have to wonder at the motivations of doing that other to hurt the public perception of the card and it's performance, I can see no reason.

 

[Scougar]

I was actually referring to the first page of the nano review thread, not the post where he makes a cherry picked comment, I'm thinking people think I'm referring to that. The very first page to greet people has only 1080p results posted after the video reviews.

it's a pretty counter intuitive mistake to make especially given Anands placement of the graphs which places the 4k results first. I do have to wonder at the motivations of doing that other to hurt the public perception of the card and it's performance, I can see no reason.

I have to agree, after looking at the first page, it really does need more than just 1080p results.

 

[TheMorningStar]

Yeah, exactly. Should be 4k only really given the nature of the card, maybe add the 1440/1080 as an afterthought for people interested, but only displaying 1080p where it performs the worst and where it is not designed to be used by any stretch of the imagination is just kicking AMD when they are down. That's the kind of misinformation competitors pay for, Nvidia may as well be sponsoring this review thread.

 

[thebennyboy]

The thing that puts me off the Nano is obviously it's price, a lot of reviews are also complaining of coil whine. In fact, every review i've watched has mentioned it. No good for a ~£550 card.

 

[Geeman1979]

Nano Whinegate!

 

[spikerules]

I was really looking forward to this card so I could start my mini ITX build, but the price and AGAIN lack of HDMI 2.0 along with the coil whine has put me right off. So let's get things into perspective here...

1) AMD are selling this as a living room card and it performs best at 1440p and 4k, correct? So why no HDMI 2.0? How is my 4k TV going to run games at 60Hz?

2) The price is insanely over the top. What are they thinking?

3) Couldn't you just buy the better Fury X and mod a Mini ITX case to fit the water cooler? I mean isn't the Fury X also quite small?

4) Coil whine in my living room isn't going to be acceptable...

 

[Gregster]

Yeah, exactly. Should be 4k only really given the nature of the card, maybe add the 1440/1080 as an afterthought for people interested, but only displaying 1080p where it performs the worst and where it is not designed to be used by any stretch of the imagination is just kicking AMD when they are down. That's the kind of misinformation competitors pay for, Nvidia may as well be sponsoring this review thread.

I had every intention of putting 1440P results and 4K results up but I had to go to work and my apologies for this. I can see where you are coming from though and I will wipe off the 1080P results because it doesn't look very good for the card and like you say, people will only be interested in this card for 4K (and the card looks better, so best to only show it in a perfect example).

 

[Jono8]

Yeah, exactly. Should be 4k only really given the nature of the card, maybe add the 1440/1080 as an afterthought for people interested, but only displaying 1080p where it performs the worst and where it is not designed to be used by any stretch of the imagination is just kicking AMD when they are down. That's the kind of misinformation competitors pay for, Nvidia may as well be sponsoring this review thread.

What? It was a joke ( presumably aimed at Harlequin's silly cherry picked link that showed the Nano close to the 980Ti in 1 out of the 12 games tested after stating the Nano was almost just as quick as a 980Ti)

 

[Gregster]

What? It was a joke ( presumably aimed at Harlequin's silly cherry picked link that showed the Nano close to the 980Ti in 1 out of the 12 games tested after stating the Nano was almost just as quick as a 980Ti)

Everyone else got it but never mind

I have added all the 1080P 1440P and 4K results to the OP.

 

[Stanners]

I had every intention of putting 1440P results and 4K results up but I had to go to work and my apologies for this. I can see where you are coming from though and I will wipe off the 1080P results because it doesn't look very good for the card and like you say, people will only be interested in this card for 4K (and the card looks better, so best to only show it in a perfect example).

Also do not mention you can only use 30hz on a 4k TV, that talk should be banned

 

[Jono8]

The 980Ti still beats it in all the 4k anandtech benches anyway (and comprehensively so in almost all of them) so...

 

[Gregster]

Also do not mention you can only use 30hz on a 4k TV, that talk should be banned

Even when I put cherry picked results, I still get a hard time and was totally me being humerous but hey ho!

The funny thing is, TheMorningStar wants me to only show it in a good light (by showing only 4K results where it does better) but I find that as bad as what I did but he isn't joking

 

[queamin]

You should show all results and let people make their mind up, same with sites reviews or what is the point we are in this mess because people cherry pick results and tailor results to their own agenda instead of giving a fair review and i know we are all biased in one way or other but be a least fair as you can be and this isn't a pop at you Greg.