• 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

Fiji has just been a trophy GPU to make it look as though AMD are doing something, once 14nm/20nm or whatever it was got delayed yet further until 2016 I don't think AMD ever had any intention of making Fiji a volume product, or maybe it was just the HBM which was a necessity for Fiji on 28nm. Either way AMD reached a point where they just had to be seen to be doing something other than simple rebrands.
 
Last edited:
AND or Nvidia everything above the GTX 970 / R9 390 is over priced.

And lol at people defending their Titan-X price now bashing the price of this.
 
They dialed up the niche-factor to 11 and the price too.

The performance is pretty good for a single PCI-E 8-pin, but it's ultimately overpriced and pointless.

There also seems to be a huge difference between the Hexus and kitguru benchmarks (just two I picked at random) - maybe throttling because of the small case? With decent airflow it's a hair faster than a 980, but other reviews indicate less than that.

I guess some reviews are more 'fair' than others... :rolleyes:
 
Notice the review sites are also tearing into it, due to the lack of HDMI 2.0 support.

Ah well! Some expensive rip-off active converter should be along soon to save the day.
 
At least most reviews actually tested the nano in an itx case for temp tests. Some neglected hardware sites where claiming that only they do this sort of thing. As can be seen the nano only throttles a bit to around 800MHz if the temp gets close to 80C.
 
R9 Nano v Fury X

R9 Nano
Worse cooler
Worse clocks
Thermal throttling
More noise
Worse performance
Worse looks
And a higher price than a Fury X

What a joke as it costs AMD a lot less to produce the Nano than it does the Fury X.

I vote AMD rename the Nano to the NoNo to help people with their next purchase decision lol.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Come on man with what you have spent on Titans/Titan x I could kit out my whole house with pretty fast gaming machines. The Nano is arguably better value than Titans due to how small and fast it is.
Click to expand...

Fair comment and no argument from me :cool: And did make me laugh :D
 
So with the throttling etc, does the Fury pro end up being faster?

p.s. I think the product is great, just the price is not.
 
Last edited:
So when GM204 launched Nvidians were shouting that efficiency, temps and size were all that mattered, now they are saying to bung a Ti in a SFF case? :confused:

By their original dogma Nano commands the premium and is the ONLY choice. Can't wait to see what is the next big talking point.
 
Complain about the price all you want but try buying a card that small that can legitimately played 4K games. I would have to agree with the sentiment about HDMI 2 it's a glaring weekness, AMD should have developed it's own adaptor and supplied with every card.
 
Scougar said:
So with the throttling etc, does the Fury pro end up being faster?

p.s. I think the product is great, just the price is not.
Click to expand...

Yea it is. An interesting thing on the Guru review was the overclocking. The card was holding 1070 core consistently and it seems this was down to the 50% extra power limit being set. You could probably just set this with stock clocks to gain extra performance straight away as the card would not throttle. The gains overclocked are pretty nice.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,36.html

I have not read any others so not sure if the other reviews found the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom