R9 Nano Review thread

nashathedog · 13 Sep 2015 at 19:08

TheRealDeal said:
Since when was an open bench better than a decent case. My card runs much cooler in my case than it does in any reviews. We are talking air cooled Fury X in a decent case. I don't have all my fan slots filled either which would improve my temps even further. My 290 never exceeds 67 degrees at stock and it probably matches Fury X in power consumption.

Like the other my response mine was to you talking about the Nano's cooler keeping the card cool enough, You even provided a link to the Nano review.

This is what you said

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...review,36.html

TheRealDeal · 13 Sep 2015 at 19:12

nashathedog said:
Like the other my response mine was to you talking about the Nano, You even provided a link to the Nano review.

Yea that was to show that a nano with a stock cooler could sustain clocks above Fury X. A decent full size cooler on a Fury X should be good enough to provide sufficient cooling. My point was Fury X should do well under a decent air cooler as nano does with what i would imagine ain't the greatest cooler. Any how i think we are all back on the proper path

.

nashathedog · 13 Sep 2015 at 19:15

TheRealDeal said:
Yea that was to show that a nano with a stock cooler could sustain clocks above Fury X. A decent full size cooler on a Fury X should be good enough to provide sufficient cooling. Any how i think we are all back on the proper path

You're right, A Fury Tri-X cooler would easily keep the full chip in check. My Fury is cool and silent even if overclocked at load. AMD should have released a Fury X Tri-X from the beginning.

TheRealDeal · 13 Sep 2015 at 19:18

nashathedog said:
You're right, A Fury Tri-X cooler would easily keep the full chip in check. My Fury is cool and silent even if overclocked at load. AMD should have released a Fury X Tri-X from the beginning.

Yep mr mmj thinks other wise and i was replying to him.

LoadsaMoney · 13 Sep 2015 at 19:27

nashathedog said:
You're right, A Fury Tri-X cooler would easily keep the full chip in check. My Fury is cool and silent even if overclocked at load. AMD should have released a Fury X Tri-X from the beginning.

Yeah should have let the AIBs do customs, bad move not allowing it tbh.

Already seeing the Tri-X and the Strix coolers keeping full fat FXs cool without a problem, as quite a few have unlocked them now.

Unless the AIOs for the 'overclockers dream' that its supposed to be, when the voltage gets unlocked, but it hasn't come off.

GoogalyMoogaly · 13 Sep 2015 at 20:04

LoadsaMoney said:
Yeah should have let the AIBs do customs, bad move not allowing it tbh.

Already seeing the Tri-X and the Strix coolers keeping full fat FXs cool without a problem, as quite a few have unlocked them now.

Unless the AIOs for the 'overclockers dream' that its supposed to be, when the voltage gets unlocked, but it hasn't come off.

Out of interest, did either of your Furys unlock?

Joe! · 13 Sep 2015 at 20:16

ALXAndy said:
How refreshing, an argument.

Welcome to the graphics card forum

Ash0787 · 13 Sep 2015 at 20:28

same arguments apply to the 970, you would be better off buying a full size card if possible for the case you want, however the mini 970 is cheaper than any of the more powerful nvidia cards so in that sense its still the best option.

Yeah fury x should work with air cooler because it only goes up to about 300w and I think the Nano goes up to about 200w with only 1 fan

Gerard · 13 Sep 2015 at 21:32

https://twitter.com/amd_roy

looks like roy has taken a twitter break.

LoadsaMoney · 13 Sep 2015 at 21:34

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Out of interest, did either of your Furys unlock?

Never tried em, fast enough as is tbh.

bru · 13 Sep 2015 at 21:39

ALXAndy said:
How refreshing, an argument.

You sir owe me a cup of tea, as this one has just been spat all over the floor.( thank god I was reading this on my phone and not on the computer else it would be a right mess.)

mmj_uk · 13 Sep 2015 at 21:46

TheRealDeal said:
Yep mr mmj thinks other wise and i was replying to him.

You might want to learn to read TheRealDeal.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28559547&postcount=361

stulid suggested that Fury X could have a small cooler like the Nano, Tri-X cooler doesn't fall into that category does it?!

If you hammered the Nano with heavy compute or a game which was extremely demanding it would throttle far more than Fury/FuryX due to the performance cap. That wouldn't be acceptable for Fury/Fury X which are performance parts.

nashathedog · 13 Sep 2015 at 21:48

mmj_uk said:
You might want to learn to read TheRealDeal.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28559547&postcount=361

stulid suggested that Fury X could have a small cooler like the Nano, Tri-X cooler doesn't fall into that category does it?!

At the end of the day the Nano is a peak into one of the directions that gamers can go when building with future gens. I'm looking forward to my next total rebuild being an ITX rig with plenty of oomph.

I'm hoping for an option where the cpu has more than 4 cores too, Zen maybe?

I just hope AMD don't make as much of a hash of that as they have with the Fiji releases.

Gregster · 13 Sep 2015 at 22:02

Gerard said:
https://twitter.com/amd_roy

looks like roy has taken a twitter break.

Blocked too many people I reckon and broke it

nashathedog · 13 Sep 2015 at 22:51

Gregster said:
Blocked too many people I reckon and broke it

Haven't you heard?

It's intel_roy now.

Kaapstad · 13 Sep 2015 at 23:10

If only AMD had launched the Fury X with 8gb of old fashioned Samsung GDDR5 and an air cooler, that would have covered all the bases.

Heck it would have been an overclockers dream with a custom waterblock !!!!

FredFlint · 13 Sep 2015 at 23:46

Kaapstad said:
If only AMD had launched the Fury X with 8gb of old fashioned Samsung GDDR5 and an air cooler, that would have covered all the bases.

Heck it would have been an overclockers dream with a custom waterblock !!!!

It could not be done, moving to HBM reduced power and the size of the memory controller and some other thing. If it used GDDR the chip would be bigger and use more power, and the PCB would be bigger and cost more.

nashathedog · 14 Sep 2015 at 01:14

FredFlint said:
It could not be done, moving to HBM reduced power and the size of the memory controller and some other thing. If it used GDDR the chip would be bigger and use more power, and the PCB would be bigger and cost more.

I doubt anyone would mind that if it meant that we would have also got the performance increase you'd expect going from 2816 streams to 4096

Kaapstad · 14 Sep 2015 at 01:29

FredFlint said:
It could not be done, moving to HBM reduced power and the size of the memory controller and some other thing. If it used GDDR the chip would be bigger and use more power, and the PCB would be bigger and cost more.

GM200 cards manage it easy and come with up to 12gb of VRAM.

AMD have totally screwed up the implementation of HBM -

They used HBM1 instead of HBM2.

Only 4gb of VRAM.

Clockspeed too low.

Short supply of the actual memory.

Too many products using it(Fury X, Fury P and Nano).

Poor reliability (I have had 2 cards fail due to the memory).

Told everyone it was an overclockers dream.

Poor marketing getting reviewers backs up with lack of review samples.

I could go on but really some people at AMD deserve the red card (no pun intended) for this.

TheMorningStar · 14 Sep 2015 at 01:39

FredFlint said:
It could not be done, moving to HBM reduced power and the size of the memory controller and some other thing. If it used GDDR the chip would be bigger and use more power, and the PCB would be bigger and cost more.

They did kinda make that card, it's the 390x.

It's pretty clear at this point that the HBM cards are hard to make. Maybe it's the size of the chip, given that everyone expected to be on 16nm by this point. Maybe it's the HBM which up until now has not been mass produced. Maybe it's integration with the interposer, if something goes wrong here I imagine the whole package is a writeoff. Maybe it's more than one or all of these things. It's pretty obvious AMD are doing everything they possibly can, but they are the little guy. All things considered they seem to be doing pretty well on the innovation and performance side with their GFX division, The CPUs and APUs while not great are fine for entry and mainstream markets, lets hope Zen brings some new life to at least the doorway of the enthusiast market.

It looks at least that AMD has the potential to do big things for the next gen of graphics cards if they can get all the problems ironed out with fiji production and 16nm finally hits.