R9 Nano Review Thread

In addition to your observations about Fury X compatibility, none of those cases can handle the TDP levels required for the Nano.

The RAIJINTEK Metis is only popular because it looks nice and is relatively cheap. It doesn't have the airflow for a Core i5 plus GTX 750 Ti, as shown in this [H] build thread:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1841126



An R9 Nano would suck down an additional 125w! How are you supposed to cool that with a single 120mm case fan?

And here Anandtech reviewed the LIAN LI TU100, and found that it could just barely handle a bus-powered graphics card like the GTX 750 Ti and a Core i3. Anything more powerful would have been very hot and fairly noisy:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6982/lian-li-pctu100-miniitx-case-review/5

So basically if you're building one of these small cases, you're far too limited by airflow to handle more than 150-200w coming out of the box. People shooting for 250-300w total system power (Nano plus Intel i5) are out of their minds!

Hence why the Nano is a niche product. The GTX 750 Ti is the closest thing to fulfilling the needs of these cases, with a very short card length :D

Me, when I researched a small PC case, I settled for the Node 304. It's bigger than any of the linked cases, but it can actually handle 250w without breaking a sweat. Can also handle incredibly long graphics cards, if you get a short PSU.

Yeah, I think people are forgetting the TDP of the card, and how its going to cook up the cases.

I can't wait to see the [H] review with some real solid testing.
 
So let me get this straight:
There was no bitching when a 980 is roughly 10-15% faster than a 970 and cost $200 more. But when a Nano is 10% faster than a 980 and costs $650 its a problem? Same goes for Fury...

Not so much "bitching" but I do recall that many believed the 970 to be the better value.

Also, at the time, what faster alternative was there to the 980? In the current situation we are seeing that the 980 Ti is the same price (or slightly less) as the Fury X/Nano and is faster.
 
You don't need a 500w+ PSU for this card. With my extremely power hungry system, fully loaded, I pull 4.5A at the wall @ 123.9VAC. 123.9x4.5=557.5w
 
You don't need a 500w+ PSU for this card. With my extremely power hungry system, fully loaded, I pull 4.5A at the wall @ 123.9VAC. 123.9x4.5=557.5w

I'm sorry I don't really understand how the whole power thing works. Your 280x pulls about 300W you would still be over 500 if you swapped the unit out, not sure exactly what your 7970 pulls but if the Anandtech report is correct it should be pulling about 238 under load.

So your looking at 538W under load just from your video cards, so some how your system is only pulling 20W?

Anandtech showed this thing pulling 250W in Crysis 3, I would want at least a 500w PSU to run this thing.
 
Last edited:
1. See point #3 that you made.

2. 400W with ample thermal control is still pushing the boundaries of requiring full size ATX PSU...see point #3 that you made.

3. There's a huge difference between a mITX or uATX enthusiast MoBo tailored for OC'ing that's going to require adequate cooling and a small form factor MoBo that will be just fine with the "bare minimums". Getting one of those enthusiast grade smaller MoBos is going to require a chassis that can house a full size ATX PSU and offer plenty of chassis can provisions...same when using a Nano. Hence, the Nano is completely counterintuitive to the very market segment it's designed for.

4. That's along the lines of the point I'm making...the Nano is going to (ideally) require a chassis that provides provisions for adequate power (full size ATX) and plenty of cooling (chassis can mounts)...this is going to translate into needing a larger chassis, which means a larger/longer GPU would probably fit just fine. Why choose a $650 Nano when the same expense yields a superior Fury X or 980 Ti?

No doubt some prudent design choices. Yes if you let heat build up in your case it will fry something. Smaller cards can help with air flow circulation, except in the Nano it dumps some of the heat back into the case while a 980 reference will draw cool air in and dump hot out the back. From a design standpoint the 980 reference (about the same power envelope) will work better in a very restrictive case. The FuryX water cooler does the same thing, so for small cases maybe the FuryX or any water cooler design is better. Just need some good data which looks like [H] is going to do, about the only ones at that.

What is a small footprint - I guess each of us has our own ideas. For me it is the total system footprint and not just one aspect of it. Obviously a laptop could win hands down if one thinks about it and are the true SFF kings. Except laptops have there own limitations such as you get what get and if you want more usually it means buying another laptop (less upgradable). Anyways for a desktop, having the monitor sit on top of the computer case that does not take up too much space gives a smaller footprint. The cube type SFF solutions are usually just to high to place a monitor on top so it takes up a larger area overall.

As for power supplies, goal is to sip as little power as possible (less heat, usually also means less noise) while maximizing performance. SFX goes up to about 450w which should be plenty for a Nano, Mini 970 or a 980 and a 100w CPU or less. If one wants to go larger one can, there is no correct answer here. It all comes down to choice.
 
Yeah pretty unfortunate they limited their potential customer base with the price. I'm sure a lot of people would be all over this thing if it was around the ~$500 mark. Now only people who must have a card this size and want most of the power will be picking this card.

they'll be sold out just like the fury cards have been

which is hilarious IMO
 
Stock has been plenty for the nano cards. Since launch not a single day that I couldn't order at least one from newegg.com multiple times during the day that I checked.

This wasnt the case with 980 ti and Fury X.
 
Either the stock is significantly better on the Nano than everyone expected or they simply aren't selling.
 
Either the stock is significantly better on the Nano than everyone expected or they simply aren't selling.


There's an easy way to find out. Check Amazon sellers rank:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/284822/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_pc_1_3_last

Best ranked Fury X = 269:

http://www.amazon.com/XFX-R9-FURY-4QFA-RADEON-Graphics-Cards/dp/B0106IJXX0

Best ranked Fury = 165:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-TRIPLE-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/B011D7A526

Nano = 169:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-PCI-Express-Graphics-21249-00-40G/dp/B014SEK4VI

So no big difference between Fury. and Nano. And yet the regular Fury is in stock everywhere, indicating poor sales. And a potential indication of poor sales for the Nano (still too early to call). Only the Fury X is hard to find.

And let me put this in perspective: number 16 on the graphics card list is this beast, so Amazon buyers are certainly capable of spending money where warranted:

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-...-P4-4995-KR/dp/B00YDAYOK0/ref=zg_bs_284822_16

In fact, all of the custom-cooled GTX 980 Ti cards except Zotac were all ranked at 60 or better. That's a massive difference in sales rank compared to similarly priced cards from AMD..

Also, even recent releases like the GTX 950 have cards ranked below 50, so it's not a "newness" issue. The Nano and Fury are just not that desirable.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
If in two enthusiast communities that I created a poll in, only 5 respondents said they will buy Nano on launch, I am sure only people NOT in the know or people with VERY SPECIFIC uses for the card are going out to purchase the Nano.

Second community is OCN btw.
 
One thing that gets overlooked is while the Nano is the first product with a major push as a itx sized performance graphics card it isn't really a first or unique product in that space. There have been high performance itx sized cards in the past as well, except those for the most part were not widely sampled or distributed to draw the same public attention.

Just look at the GTX 970 mini, it fits into the same relative tier the Nano does now when it launched (second tier performance from the top end at ITX sizes) and without any large price premium.

So although the oversell is being pushed that Nano is some important milestone for SFF builds it really isn't, there have already been options. If past much more mainstream priced ITX solutions were considered a relatively niche market than the something like the Nano is really a product for a niche within a niche.
 
So let me get this straight:
There was no bitching when a 980 is roughly 10-15% faster than a 970 and cost $200 more. But when a Nano is 10% faster than a 980 and costs $650 its a problem? Same goes for Fury...

NVM the claims of Fury beating the Titan and etc, but look at hard numbers.

There was tons of bitching as 970 was crowned as value king of high end cards while 980 was ofter criticised for offering 20% more for 50% higher price.
 
seems to me the x version have issue with yields but the Fury version is plenty with the best price/performance at entusiast end.
 
I just checked a major retailer in Scandinavia plus a distributor and the inventory for the NANO has not changed at all the last 48 hours. Not ONE sold card.

Why can't AMD have a perfect release? Coil whine? No HDMI 2.0. The high price point would be OK if the card was flawnless, but now it's holding me back.They will be forced to act soon if the sales numbers keeps in the ZERO range. It's a major bummer for an ITX enthusiast like me.
 
If these cards were priced $349/449/549, AMD would have much, much more sales. Its a pity they priced them so high. They are digging their own grave.
 
If these cards were priced $349/449/549, AMD would have much, much more sales. Its a pity they priced them so high. They are digging their own grave.

Right? AMD knew full well how the entire Fury lineup would stack up against the competition long before they were launched, but still chose to price point themselves another foot deeper towards the bottom of the grave.

Nano should be targeting the 970/970 mini and priced between $325-350
Fury should be targeting the 980 and priced between $450-500
Fury X should be targeting both the 980 and 980 Ti and priced between $550-600

All R9 Fury models just don't have the features and performance to justify their current pricing, imo.

May have been wise for AMD to diversify the Fury lineup like so:
Nano - 4GB $350
Nano X - 8GB $400
Fury - 4GB $450
Fury GHz Ed - 8GB $500
Fury X - 8GB $550
Fury X WC - 8GB $600
 
One thing that gets overlooked is while the Nano is the first product with a major push as a itx sized performance graphics card it isn't really a first or unique product in that space. There have been high performance itx sized cards in the past as well, except those for the most part were not widely sampled or distributed to draw the same public attention.

Just look at the GTX 970 mini, it fits into the same relative tier the Nano does now when it launched (second tier performance from the top end at ITX sizes) and without any large price premium.

So although the oversell is being pushed that Nano is some important milestone for SFF builds it really isn't, there have already been options. If past much more mainstream priced ITX solutions were considered a relatively niche market than the something like the Nano is really a product for a niche within a niche.

Agreed. There are actually several similarly sized GTX 960 and 950 cards too. In fact, if I was going to go TINY case (meaning not an ITX case that could hold a larger card) I would probably choose a GTX 960 for the simple fact that it would have headroom in power, heat, still have decent performance (not 4K mind which suits me actually) and cost next to nothing. I didn't check to see if they have 4GB versions that small, but I would guess that someone makes one. That seems like a prime card for something this small. The 970 obviously would be even better, but for this specific tiny case scenario, I don't think I'd even go THAT high.

Edit: This one is 6.8" and is a 4GB GTX 960. I'd probably do this if going super SFF http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487154

One could certainly use something higher performance than this, but then you really start needing to ask yourself about the tradeoffs, the real application in question, etc. Since nothing this form factor including the Nano is really what I'd call a 4K-ready card, why bother trying to build for it in this form factor? Ok, I can see doing it for the sheer "because I can" reason for someone really into pushing boundaries in small spaces. But, then once again, we're talking about niche-in-niche-in-niche.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, that is sexy.

Agreed, though I've gotten used to 65" in the living room. Even with the added resolution, I'm not sure I could go back. Just have to wait for a bigger one I suppose. :D
 
Right? AMD knew full well how the entire Fury lineup would stack up against the competition long before they were launched, but still chose to price point themselves another foot deeper towards the bottom of the grave.

Nano should be targeting the 970/970 mini and priced between $325-350
Fury should be targeting the 980 and priced between $450-500
Fury X should be targeting both the 980 and 980 Ti and priced between $550-600

All R9 Fury models just don't have the features and performance to justify their current pricing, imo.

May have been wise for AMD to diversify the Fury lineup like so:
Nano - 4GB $350
Nano X - 8GB $400
Fury - 4GB $450
Fury GHz Ed - 8GB $500
Fury X - 8GB $550
Fury X WC - 8GB $600

You do realize this is a 600 sq mm GPU right? Not a mainstream ~400 sq mm die like the GTX 980, or the R9 390X? Prices that low would lose them money. They're really only doing this because they can't get the power levels any lower with Hawaii and still make it competitive with a GTX 970.

Also, they shouldn't have done it, but AMD sold Fiji's soul to HBM 1.0. This means no more than 4GB per card, and higher costs versus GDDR5, all for a small power savings.

In hindsight, since they were able to get 6 GHz working fine even on the craptastiic Hawaii memory controller (390x), why didn't they just stick with 512-bit GDDR5 for Fiji? That combined with delta color compression would have been enough to keep Fiji fed, and would have reduced costs, and made it more attractive with 8GB ram!
 
You do realize this is a 600 sq mm GPU right? Not a mainstream ~400 sq mm die like the GTX 980, or the R9 390X? Prices that low would lose them money. They're really only doing this because they can't get the power levels any lower with Hawaii and still make it competitive with a GTX 970.

Also, they shouldn't have done it, but AMD sold Fiji's soul to HBM 1.0. This means no more than 4GB per card, and higher costs versus GDDR5, all for a small power savings.

In hindsight, since they were able to get 6 GHz working fine even on the craptastiic Hawaii memory controller (390x), why didn't they just stick with 512-bit GDDR5 for Fiji? That combined with delta color compression would have been enough to keep Fiji fed, and would have reduced costs, and made it more attractive with 8GB ram!

You do realise you are preaching to those who wish it was different.
Your comment helps nothing, we arent going to pay more because we know that.
Go ball ache AMD for screwing up the design, performance and price.
 
You do realize this is a 600 sq mm GPU right?

Yep - not my problem...

I listed what I feel AMD should have done with the Fury lineup...how they get there would have been up to them, be that with GDDR5 over HBM for certain models, disabled cores for the lower priced units, or whatever.
 
You do realize this is a 600 sq mm GPU right? Not a mainstream ~400 sq mm die like the GTX 980, or the R9 390X? Prices that low would lose them money. They're really only doing this because they can't get the power levels any lower with Hawaii and still make it competitive with a GTX 970.

Also, they shouldn't have done it, but AMD sold Fiji's soul to HBM 1.0. This means no more than 4GB per card, and higher costs versus GDDR5, all for a small power savings.

In hindsight, since they were able to get 6 GHz working fine even on the craptastiic Hawaii memory controller (390x), why didn't they just stick with 512-bit GDDR5 for Fiji? That combined with delta color compression would have been enough to keep Fiji fed, and would have reduced costs, and made it more attractive with 8GB ram!


Ok, if they would have knocked $50 off the price and released it right after Titan X and before 980ti they would have sold the damn things a lot better than now.

Timing and price was all wrong. Performance was not the issue IMO, especially at 1440p and above.
 
i was very pro-nano and was dead set on buying it for my next build... but i can't justify the price equal to fury x. all this time i thought it would be $499, although granted those were from rumors. with the x, you could look at it as though it included a $100 pre-installed liquid cooling unit with the card.
with the prices being equal i'd just get a fury x.
 
Ok, if they would have knocked $50 off the price and released it right after Titan X and before 980ti they would have sold the damn things a lot better than now.

Timing and price was all wrong. Performance was not the issue IMO, especially at 1440p and above.

Most of AMD products are overpriced on release and need price correction few months later.
 
I'm sorry I don't really understand how the whole power thing works. Your 280x pulls about 300W you would still be over 500 if you swapped the unit out, not sure exactly what your 7970 pulls but if the Anandtech report is correct it should be pulling about 238 under load.

So your looking at 538W under load just from your video cards, so some how your system is only pulling 20W?

Anandtech showed this thing pulling 250W in Crysis 3, I would want at least a 500w PSU to run this thing.

P = IE P= Power or watts. I=Current or amps. E= Energy or voltage.

My system at idle on desktop draws 0.6A. Fully loading CPU cores only via Prime stress tests for all 8 "cores" set on max power consumption yields 1.8A at the wall. Highest draw I could manage using 3Dmark was 3.8A. BF4 in a 64p loaded map, with everything on ultra except 2xMSAA @ 1440p maxes out at 4.5A. My CPU shows 100% utilization, as does the 280x and the 7970GHz in Crossfire. The numbers don't lie. However, the PF on this PSU is quite good. That can make a serious difference on a loaded system.
I don't know what tool Anandtech uses to measure current draw, and how they are choosing to load the system. I use an Ideal 61-775 to measure current draw with an accuracy of 2%. For voltage monitoring I use a Fluke CNX 3000 with accuracy of 1%.These are just my home tools. I work with HV on a daily basis, and am quite familiar on how to monitor, troubleshoot, diagnose, and repair electrical and electronic circuits.

Edit: If you have a test that you'd like the see the results of, I would be more than happy to oblige!
 
Last edited:
Right? AMD knew full well how the entire Fury lineup would stack up against the competition long before they were launched, but still chose to price point themselves another foot deeper towards the bottom of the grave.

Nano should be targeting the 970/970 mini and priced between $325-350
Fury should be targeting the 980 and priced between $450-500
Fury X should be targeting both the 980 and 980 Ti and priced between $550-600

All R9 Fury models just don't have the features and performance to justify their current pricing, imo.

May have been wise for AMD to diversify the Fury lineup like so:
Nano - 4GB $350
Nano X - 8GB $400
Fury - 4GB $450
Fury GHz Ed - 8GB $500
Fury X - 8GB $550
Fury X WC - 8GB $600

Lolz...do you have any idea what you are talking about?

None of the Fiji cards can be over 4 Gb. That's the current limit, inherent to architecture.

I agree on the pricing. If AMD undercut comparable or slightly fastter NVIDIA cards by $50 or more then the Fury's would have a fighting chance.
 
Lolz...do you have any idea what you are talking about?

None of the Fiji cards can be over 4 Gb. That's the current limit, inherent to architecture.

I agree on the pricing. If AMD undercut comparable or slightly fastter NVIDIA cards by $50 or more then the Fury's would have a fighting chance.

To be fair, he did say something along the lines of, "even if they had to use GDDR5 instead". As they sit now, no 8GB is not possible.
 
Lolz...do you have any idea what you are talking about?

None of the Fiji cards can be over 4 Gb. That's the current limit, inherent to architecture.

I agree on the pricing. If AMD undercut comparable or slightly fastter NVIDIA cards by $50 or more then the Fury's would have a fighting chance.


To be fair, he did say something along the lines of, "even if they had to use GDDR5 instead". As they sit now, no 8GB is not possible.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041857314&postcount=185

Thank you, J3RK. Damn, reading sucks...
 
P = I/E P= Power or watts. I=Current or amps. E= Energy or voltage.

E = Energy (Watts) not voltage.
Voltage is potential difference that dictates rate of flow of current through resistance.
The current flow x voltage = Watts energy.

P = IxV
 
It's P = I x V.


Negative Ghost Rider.

Using "V" does not fit. If you're going to use "V", then one would also use "W" and "A".

In both physics, chemistry, and electrical work, energy is noted "E".

More specifically, "E" stands for Electromotive force. Watt, Ampere, and Volt are the units of measure. "P", "I", "E", and "R" are called Dimension Symbols. Their SI(International System of Units) unit symbols are "W", "A", "V", and the greek letter for Omega, respectively.
 
Negative Ghost Rider.

Using "V" does not fit. If you're going to use "V", then one would also use "W" and "A".

In both physics, chemistry, and electrical work, energy is noted "E".

More specifically, "E" stands for Electromotive force. Watt, Ampere, and Volt are the units of measure. "P", "I", "E", and "R" are called Dimension Symbols. Their SI(International System of Units) unit symbols are "W", "A", "V", and the greek letter for Omega, respectively.

E stands for Energy.
E.M.F. is Electro Motive Force is Voltage.
Electro defines nothing and is not a standard.

I stands for current.
Amps is the measured unit of current.
If you have studied the topic you would know this.
Or at least "should" :p
 
E stands for Energy.
E.M.F. is Electro Motive Force is Voltage.
Electro defines nothing and is not a standard.

I stands for current.
Amps is the measured unit of current.
If you have studied the topic you would know this.
Or at least "should" :p

I have studied it quite extensively. I'm in my final year of EE school, with a focus on Controls.

Electromotive is one word, not two. It basis off of two roots, electron, and motive, meaning motion.

E.M.F. is acronym for Electromagnetic Field.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top