• 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

Ferrari100 said:
Guys. I bought a PowerColor Nano and recieved it Monday.
Just doe 3D Market score when 10% catalyst overclock.
Not bad eh.
Small amount of coil whine at times but not as bad as a 290 when that gets going.
Bear in Mind the not sooo fast Intel i5 - 4460 doing the CPU work.


Lian Li PC-Q33WB Mini-ITX Cube - Black Window:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=ca-706-ll

amd powercolor nano
16gb fury ram 2400
intel 15 4460 cpu
asrock z97m-itz/ac
650 corsair modular psu
500gb samsung pro 840 ssd

Click to expand...

That's slower than my 970 and stock i5 3470!
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/8524334
 
Strudders said:
It does look stunning.

Also to those who keep on saying you could have put a 980ti in. Personally I think it would make the build very ugly.... The nano is a perfect fit for that build and that case. As it was designed to be... Aesthetics are sometimes just as important as brute force. In this case (pun intended) the aesthetics are bang on. IMO
Click to expand...

Also, a lot of the mini-ITX tower cases have limitations on what cards they have - the toaster type cases can take longer cards,but actually take up more physical area.

Here is another one,but its steel:
http://www.xigmatek.com/product.php?productid=235
http://www.xigmatek.com/product.php?productid=219

2016 and 2017 are going to be good times for mini-ITX fans! :D
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Have you noticed how your CPU is faster than his one despite it having a similar clockspeed and being a generation behind.
Click to expand...

I was just looking at that myself.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/68316,80817


James score

Graphics Score 13099

Physics Score 7106

Combined Score 4947


Ferrari's score

Graphics Score 12746

Physics Score 6277

Combined Score 4934

make of that what you will.
 
I would have expected it to be significantly more than that..... The GFX score is very low IMO
The CPU score is as expected according to 3dmark
Is it throttling?
 
humbug said:
Thats really odd, all my scores are higher than Miller and yet my overall score is lower. CPU score is way higher, overall score 9400 vs 10000... WTF?
Click to expand...

For some reason your combined is super low....

That is odd

Anyway i think this is getting a little off snickers :D

see that I did there!:D

Edit: Nope seems right for the combined Humbug for your AMD FX-9590
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Have you noticed how your CPU is faster than his one despite it having a similar clockspeed and being a generation behind too!!
Click to expand...

yeah, could be down to my cpu boosting higher?

humbug said:
See sig.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5980722

Graphics Score 13151

Physics Score 9301

Thats really odd, all my scores are higher than Miller and yet my overall score is lower. CPU score is way higher... WTF?
Click to expand...

The scores are weighted i believe and your combined test is lower (14.3 vs 23.01 for mine). Dont know why there's such a difference, does seem odd. I'm on windows 10 if that makes any difference. EDIT: nope, so are you lol

Anyway didnt mean to make this a debate about the 970, i just thought the nano should be doing better than that. It could just be the drivers need to mature :)
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
yeah, could be down to my cpu boosting higher?



The scores are weighted i believe and your combined test is lower (14.3 vs 23.01 for mine). Dont know why there's such a difference, does seem odd. I'm on windows 10 if that makes any difference.
Click to expand...

I have done a search and the combined scores for the AMD FX-9590 are all below 4K, GFX and Physics are fine....
 
TheRealDeal said:
I would hazard a guess that the nano is being bottlenecked by his cpu hence the low scores all around.
Click to expand...

I can't see it being down to the cpu either as this compare shows very little movement for a 770's graphics score when being used with my old Ivy i5 and Haswell i7 even though the i7 gave a 42% increase in physics performance.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/767858/fs/1114305

EDIT:
Maybe it is that actually, my 3570k's physics score in the same version of Firestrike was 7688 which is 1400 points above his cpu's. I forgot it had a 4.1 overclock.
 
Last edited:
nashathedog said:
I can't see it being down to the cpu either as this compare shows very little movement for a 770's graphics score when being used with my old Ivy i5 and Haswell i7 even though the i7 gave a 42% increase in physics performance.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/767858/fs/1114305
Click to expand...

A full fat Fury like the nano is is way more card to push than a gtx770. My set up would bottleneck a nano in some things. Feeding a Nano is probably more like gtx770 sli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom