• 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.

Radeon Nano thread

Boomstick777 said:
Yer but that's just a 970 3.5GB + 0.5GB. Nothing special about it.

The Nano should be faster and have full 4GB of HBM to utilize.

If their was a mini-ITX GTX 980 4GB that would be more appealing that that 970.
Click to expand...

It is still 4GB no matter how you say it and it has been out for some considerable time. I didn't see anyone oooing and ahhhing then and I don't see why they would be oooing and ahhing now in truth. I wouldn't build a mini itx sytem around one of these but maybe I am missing something else?

4GB HBM/GDDR5 is still 4GB and seeing the performance of the FX first hand, I can't really say that the Nano is going to be a game changer.
 
Gregster said:
It is still 4GB no matter how you say it and it has been out for some considerable time. I didn't see anyone oooing and ahhhing then and I don't see why they would be oooing and ahhing now in truth. I wouldn't build a mini itx sytem around one of these but maybe I am missing something else?

4GB HBM/GDDR5 is still 4GB and seeing the performance of the FX first hand, I can't really say that the Nano is going to be a game changer.
Click to expand...

If its performance is around 290X but better power use, better thermal/noise performance in a compact form factor and priced aggressively while not a game changer I think it would sell pretty well.
 
Gregster said:
It is still 4GB no matter how you say it and it has been out for some considerable time. I didn't see anyone oooing and ahhhing then and I don't see why they would be oooing and ahhing now in truth. I wouldn't build a mini itx sytem around one of these but maybe I am missing something else?

4GB HBM/GDDR5 is still 4GB and seeing the performance of the FX first hand, I can't really say that the Nano is going to be a game changer.
Click to expand...

970 is 3.5GB (fast) and 0.5GB (Slow) 4GB Total.

That is how the card was designed, as a 'feature' according to Nvidia.

Nano doesn't need to be a game changer. Just a nice looking small for factor card. Looks like it could be a nice lil performer. Not sure why it would bother you if people think the Nano looks good, we've all got different taste.
 
Will probably be one more huge fall short, because they applauded the idea as being quicker as opposed to 290/980, however it defintely won't be, as possibly the Fury no By will be quicker as compared to these aged credit cards, and the FX is merely regarding in par using em, a bit quicker in certain, and the tend to be clocked a lot higher than what exactly these are supposed to be.
g.png
 
From OC.Net

iLeakStuff:


AMD tested R9 Nano and R9 290X in Unigine Heaven at 4K and posted FPS scores. Only they show fps/inch as score instead lol. R9 Nano scored 4.0FPS/inch while R9 290X scored 1.4FPS/inch.
DGLee calculated that to be 24FPS for R9 Nano and 18.4FPS for R9 290X in Unigine Heaven 4K. Thats 30% more thumb.gif

Secondly, AMD also posted watt usage in Unigine Heaven 4K, but as sneaky as the first test, they wrote down FPS/watt instead of real usage. R9 Nano got 0.152fps/watt while R9 290X managed 0.076fps/watt.
DGLee calculated 157 watt for R9 Nano and 242 watt for R9 290X in Heaven 4K.

http://i.imgur.com/DZkfJJL.jpg

Summary:
R9 Nano is looking to be 30% faster in 4K, and probably a little bit slower in lower resolutions if we look at Fury X cards. R9 Nano will also significantly reduce power consumption by roughly 80 watt compared to R9 290X.
Click to expand...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1565417/dglee-new-r9-nano-pictures-and-unigine-heaven-results-from-amd
 
I'm starting to think amd are inhaling that pump baffling adhesive instead of fixing the pump issue coming out with terms like "fps/inch".
 
Well I have seen people singing from the rooftops that the FX is the get card but they didn't get that card and then the same people sing the praises of the Fury and not got that card, so maybe this is the card they will get :D
 
Gerard said:
I'm starting to think amd are inhaling that pump baffling adhesive instead of fixing the pump issue coming out with terms like "fps/inch".
Click to expand...

Why would they even come up with this instead of regular results? Is Heaven heavy on Tessellation? Isn't Fury a lot better on tess than Hawaii?
It could be like we see with the Fury and the 390x where in the real world performance is a lot closer and heavy tess games being where Fiji pulls ahead.
 
I really don't understand how AMD can be targeting the HTPC/small form factor crowd and then keep showing benches for 4K, when you cannot connect the dam things to most 4K TV's. Of course if they were to show benches at 1080p then nobody would buy them at all. ( not that you can buy them even if you wanted too, nano not released yet and FuryX no stock :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom