R9 Nano Review thread

[nashathedog]

It's like a religious war on this sub forum.

Not even close lol

Say's the man in the corner whittling away....

 

[Jono8]

I thought the world+dog were going on how important power consumption was when the GTX970 and GTX980 were launched. I get it now.

It was then. Maxwell was very impressive for that.

The fact that the Nano has only just managed to match (debatable seen as most reviews show it drawing quite a bit more than it's TDP at stock) nvidia's perf per watt, a year later AND whilst using HBM is hardly a talking point is it. It just isnt impressive when you compare it to Maxwell.

Are we supposed to be excited that AMD are finally catching up by using HBM?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It was then.

The fact that the Nano has only just managed to match (debatable seen as most reviews show it drawing quite a bit more than it's TDP at stock) nvidia's perf per watt, a year later AND whilst using HBM is hardly a talking point is it. It isnt impressive when you compare it to Maxwell.

Are we supposed to be excited that AMD are finally catching up by using HBM?

So basically it isn't now - so all those AMD fans going on about how power consumption was not important now with the R9 290X versus the GTX970 ,were vindicated since now Nvidia fans say its not an important metric.

Pretty much the same we saw when ATI fans said power consumption was important,Nvidia fans said it was for noobs and the GTX580 is the FASTERZ and damn power consumption.

The moment things were changed around with the GTX680 and HD7970GE. It was the GTX680 consumed less power and the HD7970GE consumed MORE POWER so the GTX680 instantly won,and it was AMAZING since it took 2.5 years for Nvidia to win the effiency crown.

You want to go back further.

FX and 9700 Pro. ATI won - was a big feature.

X800 and 6800. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

X1900 and 7900. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

HD4870/HD4890 and GTX270/GTX280 series. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

Yep,power effiency being a feature for fans has been going back that long.

 

[Jono8]

guff

Did you even read what i said? No one is discussing the impressiveness of the Nano's power use (like you think we should be) because Nvidia have been doing it as well, if not better for a year now with Maxwell. Also, AMD are using HBM which naturally makes the power draw lower anyway.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It was then. Maxwell was very impressive for that.

The fact that the Nano has only just managed to match (debatable seen as most reviews show it drawing quite a bit more than it's TDP at stock) nvidia's perf per watt, a year later AND whilst using HBM is hardly a talking point is it. It just isnt impressive when you compare it to Maxwell.

Are we supposed to be excited that AMD are finally catching up by using HBM?

Did you even read what i said? No one is discussing the impressiveness of the Nano's power use (like you think we should be) because Nvidia have been doing it as well, if not better for a year now with Maxwell. Also, AMD are using HBM which naturally makes the power draw lower anyway.

So basically it isn't now - so all those AMD fans going on about how power consumption was not important now with the R9 290X versus the GTX970 ,were vindicated since now Nvidia fans say its not an important metric.

Pretty much the same we saw when ATI fans said power consumption was important,Nvidia fans said it was for noobs and the GTX580 is the FASTERZ and damn power consumption.

The moment things were changed around with the GTX680 and HD7970GE. It was the GTX680 consumed less power and the HD7970GE consumed MORE POWER so the GTX680 instantly won,and it was AMAZING since it took 2.5 years for Nvidia to win the effiency crown.

You want to go back further.

FX and 9700 Pro. ATI won - was a big feature.

X800 and 6800. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

X1900 and 7900. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

HD4870/HD4890 and GTX270/GTX280 series. Nvidia won - was a big feature.

Yep,power effiency being a feature for fans has been going back that long.

So bascially you are going on how power consumption is now not important,then you backtrack when you see its flipped-flopped between generational arguments between fans(thats why you want to ignore the post).

Whats even more interesting is how I am comparing to what AMD had before,even the Nano.

Plus do we really want to get into memory arguments - I still remember certain people saying the HD4870 was crap since it consumed more power than the Nvidia GTX200 cards while using fancy GDDR5 and Nvidia could use GDDR3 and gain better effiency and faster cards...

Wait,that sounds familar!

But like I said the GTX970 ITX threads,you don't see much whining about Nvidia in there,but you conversely see the people doing so in this thread.

GTX680 taking 2.5 years to outdo ATI/AMD never saw the statements off

"it took Nvidia soooo long to outdo ATI/AMD in power effiency. Not impressed".

No,since its just daft.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

I thought the world+dog were going on how important power consumption was when the GTX970 and GTX980 were launched. I get it now.

Yep, that when we were all informed that power consumption and cool running wasn't important for a gaming card.
Are you saying that it's all suddenly changed now that AMD are doing it? It didn't mater 6 months ago but now it's the most important factor of a gmaing card?

 

[andybird123]

Yep, that when we were all informed that power consumption and cool running wasn't important for a gaming card.
Are you saying that it's all suddenly changed now that AMD are doing it? It didn't mater 6 months ago but now it's the most important factor of a gmaing card?

I think Cats point is that "some" people change how important it is depending on which vendor is currently best at it
Its not "the most" important thing, but I think when a card has a number of advantages already, if it does that whilst also being lower power (and by association heat) then obviously it is a plus

 

[Jono8]

more guff.

No, you are overcomplicating things.

You asked why we werent discussing the Nano's power efficiency so i was saying that the reason we likely are not, is because Maxwell has been doing the same thing, if not better for a whole year. The Nano's power/perf ratio is nothing new or impressive so it isnt really a talking point at this stage in the generation.

Just to be clear, i do think efficiency is important, but the Nano's efficiency is not impressive/a talking point because Maxwell has been doing it just as well, if not better for nearly a year AND without HBM.

 

[Scougar]

the vast majority of TV's don't have display port (select Panasonic models only), so hdmi2.0 is the only way to get a 60hz connection to most 4K TV's

For this price it should at the very least have included a DP to HDMI-2 adaptor in the box. A small box I would assume (and you know what they say about assumptions), would indicate that it is to be used for media duties with a TV. Where AMD is aiming this card for makes no sense to not have hdmi2.

Maybe it's a cost saving feature, but the high cost of the card does not seem to bear that out.

Personally I like the card, just I can also see those two flaws (high-cost and no hdmi2). If you don't care about HDMI-2 then it's only the current cost. Which brings us back to how does it compare to the 970-mini?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Guff is a new word I found in the dictionary so want to look cool using it,and if I don't like anything I hear I will not read IT and quote it as guff

There is discussion to be had to see what AMD has done within its range,especially when we have seen the threads confirming usage of things like hardware scheduling which adds a power penalty and Nvidia moving to software based methods which help with power reductions.

Even discussions of the Powertune tech and so.

It would not surprise me if Pascal moves to more hardware scheduling per its renewed focus on compute.

I remember before reviews - people were saying it would never perform well in small cases at all,and reviewers would be AMD shills testing in the best conditions. Yet many didn't.

The price is horrible,but then so was the Fury X.

Like I said with the GTX970 mini-ITX threads - far more positive.

But some of you seem so vilified and horified by the card that you must burn it with fire.

I don't think even the Nvidia FX5800 and 2900XT were so villified at times.

Yet the reviewing press,even Kitguru who were bashed by AMD themselves with the Fury X,seem impressed with it,even if they think the price is OTT.

Looking at some of the arguments now in this thread,even if this card was priced at £350,now I managed to see what arguments would have been put down against it in that case.

If you don't care about HDMI-2 then it's only the current cost. Which brings us back to how does it compare to the 970-mini?

The GTX970 Mini has better drivers!

 

[Jono8]

There is discussion to be had to see what AMD has done within its range,especially when we have seen the threads confirming usage of things like hardware scheduling which adds a power penalty and Nvidia moving to software based methods which help with power reductions.

Even discussions of the Powertune tech and so.

It would not surprise me if Pascal moves to more hardware scheduling per its renewed focus on compute.

I remember before reviews - people were saying it would never perform well in small cases at all,and reviewers would be AMD shills testing in the best conditions. Yet many didn't.

The price is horrible,but then so was the Fury X.

Like I said with the GTX970 mini-ITX threads far more positive.

But some of you seem so vilified and horified by the card that you must burn it with fire.

I don't think even the Nvidia FX5800 and 2900XT were so villified at times.

Yet the reviewing press,even Kitguru who were bashed by AMD themselves with the Fury X,seem impressed with it,even if they think the price is OTT.

Looking at some of the arguments now in this thread,even if this card was priced at £350,now I managed to see what arguments would have been put down against it in this case.

I have already said earlier that i think it is a good card - the only real issue is the price.

If it was £350 i would sell my 980 right now and buy one. It would probably not throttle much at all in my big case and with the power limit turned up, so would be great.

As far as I can see the only criticisms have been the price and the lack of HDMI 2.0 which ar eboth very valid points and unfortunately do make it a very hard card to recommened.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have already said earlier that i think it is a good card - the only real issue is the price.

If it was £350 i would sell my 980 right now and buy one. It would probably not throttle much at all in my big case and with the power limit turned up so would be great.

As far as I can see the only cirticisms have been the price and the lack of HDMI 2.0 which ar eboth very valid points and unfortunately do make it a very hard card to recommened.

Don't disagree with those points TBH,but we knew it would lack HDMI2.0 and that it would probably not be under £400 even before launch. Plus the retailer markup has not helped too.

Anyway,if I had a GTX980,which is a fantastic card,I probably would be holding out until 14NM/16NM anyway.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

I don't believe I've said that I dislike the card.
I'm a little confused by the price and the sudden U-turn a lot of AMD fans have been making recently. Mostly regarding if power consumption and cool running being worthwhile (remember Red Team said at 900 series launch they'd rather have cards pushing the power limits and using that to get the best performance rather than power efficiency with good performance that could have been better if more power was used).

Also the price argument. How many times did we hear AMD owners and fans posting about how this AMD product was better bang-for-buck even if the performance wasn't quite up there with Nvidia. I'm guessing that the 970-mini's performance about 50% of the Nano's, but the price is about 50% (with a free game). This would make the 970-mini the better bang-for-buck SFF card. Now bang-for-buck doesn't seem to be getting talked about so much.

 

[Gregster]

So to summarise, it is a 4K HTPC card that will run nicely in a tiny tiny case which is perfect for under the TV but will only run at 30Hz because of no HDMI 2.0 but is very power efficient?

 

[stulid]

But its errr..

Nope I dont have anything.

if AMD let AIBs do custom cooling for FuryX then you would have a short and powerful (more than the Nano that's for sure) card that probably would fit in all the same cases the Nano does.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm a little confused by the price and the sudden U-turn a lot of Nvidia fans have been making recently. Mostly regarding if power consumption and cool running being worthwhile (remember Green Team said at GTX400 and GTX500 series launch they'd rather have cards pushing the power limits and using that to get the best performance rather than power efficiency with good performance that could have been slightly worse if less power was used).

Also the price argument. How many times did we hear Nvidia owners and fans posting about how this Nvidia product wasn't better bang-for-buck even if the performance wasn't quite up there with AMD since you paid for better drivers,better features and better support.

You see the problem,with a few name changes you can easily say the same of either side!!

Flip-flip arguments.

The problem,is I see a distinct lack of posts about you complaining about the converse.

Its the same going back to the 9700 vs FX arguments even before then.

Might have been with the GF3 and ATI 8000 series.

So around 12 years at least.

If you think it is new then I have a bridge to sell you.

Plus,I think no one has ever said this card is too expensive. I think that is the one thing everyone has agreed on LOL.

 

[andybird123]

I don't believe I've said that I dislike the card.
I'm a little confused by the price and the sudden U-turn a lot of AMD fans have been making recently. Mostly regarding if power consumption and cool running being worthwhile (remember Red Team said at 900 series launch they'd rather have cards pushing the power limits and using that to get the best performance rather than power efficiency with good performance that could have been better if more power was used).

Also the price argument. How many times did we hear AMD owners and fans posting about how this AMD product was better bang-for-buck even if the performance wasn't quite up there with Nvidia. I'm guessing that the 970-mini's performance about 50% of the Nano's, but the price is about 50% (with a free game). This would make the 970-mini the better bang-for-buck SFF card. Now bang-for-buck doesn't seem to be getting talked about so much.

its not even 50% of the Nano, it's 50% of the price for about 70% of the performance so price/performance the 970 is much better value

as far as SFF goes - Asus have just done this;
http://www.techpowerup.com/215946/asus-republic-of-gamers-unveils-the-g20cb-sff-gaming-desktop.html

 

[Gregster]

Another minus for the Nano is - They make a sweet tiny tiny card and then stick the power at the end to make it longer. Silly mistake!

 

[Jono8]

But its errr..

Nope I dont have anything.

if AMD let AIBs do custom cooling for FuryX then you would have a short and powerful (more than the Nano that's for sure) card that probably would fit in all the same cases the Nano does.

To be honest, if AMD can sort supply out they should let AIB's do custom cooled Fury X's for £400-£450 to take the fight to the 980Ti.

 

[mmj_uk]

if AMD let AIBs do custom cooling for FuryX then you would have a short and powerful (more than the Nano that's for sure) card that probably would fit in all the same cases the Nano does.

They wouldn't be able to keep it cool enough under heavy loads that's why Fury non-X has big coolers, Nano only gets away with it because it's performance capped which is kind of excusable in SFF PC's.