• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

R9 Nano Review thread

Looking back first Titan was a fantastic card. A hybrid of professional and gaming card in one. My mate got 2 in hes gaming/work pc loves. Sadly Titan X failed with doing both tasks...
 
mmj_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate clever engineering.
 
mmj_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not true as the puny cooler on the nano keeps the card cool enough while overclocked above Fury X stock clocks. A decent air cooler should be more than enough to keep fury x cooled. The gains are also huge compared to the 7% overclock. You can also see there was no throttling as it's faster than a fury x in firestrike when overclocked.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,36.html
 
Last edited:
I think the Nano is pretty exceptional with the exception of the price :P. So much power in such a small form factor is pretty well done by AMD imagen what that little beast could do in a small Watercooled lan pc.
 
Gregster said:
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!
Click to expand...

This was actually a well thought out design decision. An extra half inch for a power connector wont stop the card fitting in any case, but if it was on the side then you would not be able to get the case lid on as the card is already larger then slot height making it a tight fit in media centre cases. (I've built a few low profile systems using various Silverstone cases).
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
You see the problem,with a few name changes you can easily say the same of either side!! :D

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.
Click to expand...

In the same way I don't see you complaining about AMD stuff either.
Also I think people have complained about the card being too expensive. What thread have you been reading?
 
Jono8 said:
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)
Click to expand...

You are talking about comments in the thread, I was talking about the original posting, under the reviews and video reviews only 1080p bench results were shown. Alone this was misleading information. He has since satisfactory fixed this by adding 1440p and 4k results. I personally would have displayed the 4k first being the most relevant numbers and the first presented from the site taken from.

Gregster said:
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).
Click to expand...

Better, maybe use "4k" rather than "UHD" as most people don't understand what UHD is and may not associate it with 4k.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
In the same way I don't see you complaining about AMD stuff either.
Also I think people have complained about the card being too expensive. What thread have you been reading?
Click to expand...

LOL,you always go into threads moaning about AMD fans this and that. I am yet to see you go into a Nvidia thread and complain about Nvidia fans.

If I am wrong then link to the last time you complained about Nvidia fans.

Plus,I don't know want thread you are reading,I have said its expensive loads of times.

Let alone all the complaining I have made about the R9 285 and GTX960,and I even put my money where my mouth was and bought a GTX960.when it was cheap to test one out myself,to see if I was being unfair about it.

Last post I complained about fans here:

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
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.

:D
Click to expand...

Maybe your sarcasm meter does not work in anyway...

So when is the last time you criticised Nvidia fans??

You know what,just forget it,otherwise I assume its all AMD fans or what not working doubting your greatness!!;) :D
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
The reviews i have seen in a case show similar. My point was a decent cooler which i doubt the stock nano cooler is would be able to tame Fury X. Fury owners are having no trouble so i doubt the small step up to Fury x would be a problem.
Click to expand...

its the exact same chip, it uses the same power at the same clocks as the FuryX... when it's overclocked to 1070 it gives performance slightly faster than a FuryX because it IS running slightly faster than a FuryX

they also just say the fan control was "at stock" without mentioning what speeds it got up to or what the noise was like

the in case reviews have not done overclocking

but yes, a Fury air cooler on a FuryX would be able to cope with the stock 1050 clocks (as some people HAVE managed to unlock their Fury to a FuryX anyway)

GoogalyMoogaly said:
So why have all the Fury (Pro) coolers been so big? The actual PCB is the same size for the Nano, Pro and X isn't it?
Click to expand...

the PCB is slightly smaller on the Nano as it also has less power phases / one connector but it's the same chip/interposer as the FuryX, so the Nano tops out about 1070, where as the FuryX will do 1150 or so
 
Last edited:
GoogalyMoogaly said:
So why have all the Fury (Pro) coolers been so big? The actual PCB is the same size for the Nano, Pro and X isn't it?
Click to expand...

Simply because to keep things cool the cooler needs to be big as is the case with every card at this power and heat level.I don't see small coolers on a gtx980ti so why would you expect them on a Fury or Fury X that consume similar power levels.
 
andybird123 said:
its the exact same chip, it uses the same power at the same clocks as the FuryX... when it's overclocked to 1070 it gives performance slightly faster than a FuryX because it IS running slightly faster than a FuryX

they also just say the fan control was "at stock" without mentioning what speeds it got up to or what the noise was like

the in case reviews have not done overclocking



the PCB is slightly smaller on the Nano as it also has less power phases / one connector but it's the same chip/interposer as the FuryX, so the Nano tops out about 1070, where as the FuryX will do 1150 or so
Click to expand...

I know this lol. Do you think a decent air cooler would be capable of taming fury X. I think it would be rather easy judging by Fury non pro.
 
andybird123 said:
Yes, I agree, I'm not really sure why AMD insisted on an AIO on the FuryX as I can see them having lost sales from people who simply don't want water in their PC.
Click to expand...

Yea there decision making of late has been poor to say the least. Fury X is like a half way product to sit in the market waiting for 16nm to be ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom