AMD R9 Nano official specs (and later, reviews)

[Deleted member 13524]

How the Nano was made:

http://i.imgur.com/uwjNnQT.gifv

 

[swaaye]

If Fiji is in such short supply that AMD can't provide review samples.... Well that's really not good. I suspect the refusal is just a dumb strategic move.

 

[Jawed]

Guru3D has one:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-r9-nano-in-da-house-(in-house-photos).html

Could be useful, though a Micro ATX case is not as small as an ITX case:

Honestly throttling is not bad at all, even much better then I expected. My early tests show 5 to up-to 10%, however this is based on an open test-bench.

I will be moving it into a warmer closed Micro ATX chassis and will check thermal behavior versus trapped ambient heat etc. But for the specifics on that one you'll have to wait until the embargo lifts alongside all other benchmarks and tests.

 

[ImSpartacus]

Could be useful, though a Micro ATX case is not as small as an ITX case:

For the same money, if I'm using a microATX case (and more than a few mITX cases), I'm getting a Fury X instead of a Nano. The PCB is more-or-less the same size, so the only notable "disadvantage" is that you just need to find a spot for the radiator. Most modern cases have 2-3 suitable spots for a radiator as small as that of the Fury X.

 

[Kaotik]

For the same money, if I'm using a microATX case (and more than a few mITX cases), I'm getting a Fury X instead of a Nano. The PCB is more-or-less the same size, so the only notable "disadvantage" is that you just need to find a spot for the radiator. Most modern cases have 2-3 suitable spots for a radiator as small as that of the Fury X.

I'm using pretty close to perfect case for my needs, Silverstone Temjin TJ08-e, but since I'm already using aio-watercooling on my CPU, I don't have room for Fury X's radiator too (unless I make a new hole for another fan to the side of the case. No other case, to my knowledge, offers enough HDD slots in such small package - it's mATX case but smaller than many of the popular mITX-cases (like the ones from BitFenix).
Then again, this case can eat full length video cards too, so in my case card size doesn't really matter a lot (only thing that would change would be the ease on switching cables which happens like once a year or something)

 

[Deleted member 13524]

You probably don't need that cooler in your CPU and a decent aircooler would be more than adequate, though.

For the 45€ cost of a CPU aircooler, you'd gain a lot of performance.

 

[RedVi]

That's my take on this also. I have a FT04 which is like a taller TJ08-e, if I were to watercool anything, it would be my GPU. My 4670k runs at 4.2GHz just fine with a cheap $30 HS and pwm fan that is never audible, even when running cpu only tasks or prime95. GPU watercooling makes a hell of a lot more sense than CPU watercooling.

 

[Grall]

No other case, to my knowledge, offers enough HDD slots in such small package

What is "enough"? My Fortress FT03 has 4 mounts - 3x 3.5" (one hotswappable) and a single 2.5". With today's ludicrously high-capacity drives, if you can't get along with that then you're weird. Maybe a NAS would be a better solution, if you need storage, yet don't want a large computer chassis?

My next PC, I'm aiming to completely eliminate HDDs. I'm tired of the noise, the crappy performance and the delays of waiting for the disks to spin up on access. SSDs need to come down some more in price so that ~2TB of storage becomes reasonably affordable, that's enough for me. My next chassis must have no front-mounted drive bays at all, just like the FT03; that feature is a thing of the past and ought to have been dumped on the scrap heap of history long ago. Only design inertia has kept the drive bays driving this long.

How many people even use more than a small fraction of the 6+ bays regularly featured in most computer chassis? It's just a big ole waste of space for the most part.

 

[Kaotik]

What is "enough"? My Fortress FT03 has 4 mounts - 3x 3.5" (one hotswappable) and a single 2.5". With today's ludicrously high-capacity drives, if you can't get along with that then you're weird. Maybe a NAS would be a better solution, if you need storage, yet don't want a large computer chassis?

My next PC, I'm aiming to completely eliminate HDDs. I'm tired of the noise, the crappy performance and the delays of waiting for the disks to spin up on access. SSDs need to come down some more in price so that ~2TB of storage becomes reasonably affordable, that's enough for me. My next chassis must have no front-mounted drive bays at all, just like the FT03; that feature is a thing of the past and ought to have been dumped on the scrap heap of history long ago. Only design inertia has kept the drive bays driving this long.

How many people even use more than a small fraction of the 6+ slots regularly featured in most computer chassis? It's just a big ole waste of space for the most part.

that would be enough for me at the moment, but when I got the case I had 4 3,5" drives and one 2,5" (and regular optical) - and I'm too cheap to replace working drives even if bigger had would offer same capacity as couple smaller ones.
Also, fortress ft03 is actually bigger than temjin tj08-e despite temjin being mATX
(about 30 litres vs about 35 litres)

 

[Grall]

Also, fortress ft03 is actually bigger than temjin tj08-e despite temjin being mATX
(about 30 litres vs about 35 litres)

They're both uATX... FT03's volume isn't a big deal to me - it's still decently small, but its open design makes it easy to work in - apart from a quirk with one metal edge in particular making fitting of really long graphics cards like mine bothersome.

That temjin chassis is just so utterly generic in both appearance and design, it's just a standard PC tub of metal with no particular qualities of any kind, and its overly shrunken internal layout wouldn't work with my components - the drive bays overlap the DIMM slots, and either my super tall Dominators wouldn't fit, or my 3.5" drives wouldn't. My apartment is small, but it's not so small I need those 5 liters of internal volume back!

 

[Razor1]

Reviews: If OP can post these in the first post that would be great!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-nano,4285.html

http://www.maximumpc.com/amd-r9-nano-review/

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/09/10/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/1

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982...e-of-the-pcs-incredible-shrinking-future.html

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Review

http://anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review,1.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/86042-amd-radeon-r9-nano/

http://www.techspot.com/review/1061-amd-radeon-r9-nano/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review

http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review

https://www.hardwareheaven.com/2015/09/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/luke-hill/amd-radeon-r9-nano-4gb-review/

http://tweakers.net/reviews/4164/amd-r9-nano-krachtpatser-op-itx-formaat.html

 

[Alexko]

Here's another one: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/942-22/recapitulatif-performances.html

I'm rather impressed, since I expected the Nano to be a bit faster than the 290X "Quiet" and roughly comparable to the 290X "Über" but as it turns out it's consistently faster than the 390X, if not by much. And it ends up very, very close to the big air-cooled Fury! That said, it seems that you can get the same power-efficiency (or better) with a normal Fury simply by imposing a stricter PowerTune limit, for less money.

So OK, the Nano is small, but unless you have a super tiny case, just get a regular Fury or a GTX 980, maybe an overclocked model. But at least AMD can finally reach Maxwell's level of power-efficiency, and without sacrificing nearly as much performance as I expected. That's pretty good! It makes me more confident about GCN's future.

 

[lanek]

Guru3D
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,1.html

Exactly what i was suppose the gpu seat right between the 390x and Fury . Even more as in most games the card is only a 2-3fps from the Fury. .

I dont know how work their power management, but looking at the result, im surprised.

Funny to see that this small little gpu is having the same perf of the 7990 ...

 

[Alexko]

Damien compared GM200 to Fiji at 185W: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/942-23/fiji-vs-gm200-185w.html

GM200 comes out ahead, but not by as much as you'd think. I wonder whether it's because Fiji was pushed far beyond its optimal operating frequency in the Fury X, or because AMD's DVFS is better than NVIDIA's at minimizing power and maximizing performance in tightly constrained power budgets.

 

[Moloch]

Not a bad product for the size and power consumption, kind of impressive but it also once again shows how far AMD pushes clock speeds for performance, well passed the sweet spot. The reviews that overclocked it were a bit amusing, since you knew exactly what would happen to the power and thermals.
I may be wrong but I think they would sell a lot more of these $50 or $100 or so cheaper, but I'm not sure how much they actually cost to make.

 

[lanek]

Damien compared GM200 to Fiji at 185W: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/942-23/fiji-vs-gm200-185w.html

GM200 comes out ahead, but not by as much as you'd think. I wonder whether it's because Fiji was pushed far beyond its optimal operating frequency in the Fury X, or because AMD's DVFS is better than NVIDIA's at minimizing power and maximizing performance in tightly constrained power budgets.

I dont know, but something is sure, there's a new algorythm and power system control on the nano who is not in other one...

 

[Razor1]

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...t/4/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet

And another

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'm just wondering how long it'll take for an AIB to make a mITX GTX 980 and give the Nano a run for its money and power efficiency.

 

[Razor1]

I don't think they need to, why would a $650 nano sell many units? I see many people complaining about the price.

 

[Gubbi]

The price may be a result of both high costs and limited supply. The initially selling price is set high to simply make as many $$$ as possible while not ending up in a supply glut.

As soon as sales into the compact form factor niche is saturated, prices will come down.

Cheers