AMD R9 Nano official specs (and later, reviews)

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by CarstenS, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
  2. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    580
    Location:
    WI, USA
    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.
     
  3. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    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:

     
  4. ImSpartacus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    199
    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.
     
  5. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    1,841
    Location:
    Finland
    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)
     
  6. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
    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.
     
  7. RedVi

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Australia
    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 likes this.
  8. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Location:
    La-la land
    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.
     
    #48 Grall, Sep 8, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2015
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  9. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,184
    Likes Received:
    1,841
    Location:
    Finland
    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)
     
  10. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Location:
    La-la land
    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! ;)
     
  11. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    910
    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.
     
    Grall likes this.
  12. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    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 ...

    [​IMG]
     
    #53 lanek, Sep 10, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
  13. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    910
    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.
     
    spworley likes this.
  14. Moloch

    Moloch God of Wicked Games
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  15. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    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...
     
  16. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
  17. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    4,570
    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.
     
  18. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    I don't think they need to, why would a $650 nano sell many units? I see many people complaining about the price.
     
  19. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,528
    Likes Received:
    862
    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
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...