KickAssCop
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,304
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This system is built around the Cooler Master Elite 110 Mini ITX chassis, capable of using a full size power supply but only permitting graphics cards with lengths as long as 8.3 inches. Technically this means the Fury X could fit in here though mashing in that water cooler is going to take some work.
4) The card throttles. Whether you call it dynamic or whatever, I am never going to see the 1000 MHz advertised speed unless I overclock or set speed in AB but even then I am not guaranteed the 1000 MHz.
The KING of small factor builds.
Best card performance in the small factor market.
Godlike.
When is the Hardocp review out? oh you guys didnt do fair reviews and Kyle has beef with AMD guys, sry forgot. But I dont care about what Kyle or Brent thinks anyhow or what reviews they do anyhow and that is why I write this to just clarify I am just trolling
The KING of small factor builds.
Best card performance in the small factor market.
Godlike.
So even though R9 Nano packs a fully enabled chip, it’s not meant to compete with R9 Fury X.
The Small Form Factor Market has decided to build cases that fit full size cards.
AMD has built a Tech Demo that they are offering up for sale. It only fits the niche of SFF builds that don't support full sized cards, in the niche of people that want SFF cases.
Guru mde sure to use a really hot case. And it showed it beating a 980 quite easily which is neat. So not sure how these oc'ed 970s are going to do but 980 is pretty lackluster if there's any heat.One of the major flaws I see with these reviews is they all test the card in a rather large case (for a SSF).
This brings two issues:
#1. It opens up comparisons to full size cards, which makes the Nano look to be significantly overpriced.
#2. It does not properly test the "target" for the Nano. If it is intended to truly function in tiny cases where a full size card would not fit, I want it tested in such a small space to see how it handles heat. I think you might end up seeing some serious throttling if you actually put it in a case where you need something that small.
What i find interesting is how much power they can save with dynamically clocking the card, without losing too much performance.
Guru mde sure to use a really hot case. And it showed it beating a 980 quite easily which is neat. So not sure how these oc'ed 970s are going to do but 980 is pretty lackluster if there's any heat.
So, now that we know it performs very well, it's the size (which was already known) that is wrong...
I don't trust the Guru review one bit. They never once mention what case they used for testing and the only picture of the card in case they have up is massive.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,12.html
If that's what they consider the target case for this card they are out of their minds. That thing would fit a full size card easily and get much better performance for the dollar.
I stand by my statement of not seeing single review where the form factor of the card was necessary.
I agree. I know the PCper guys seemed confused as to the purpose of this card on the first podcast where they previewed it.
I know some people like small cases, but we have so many options that can fit a normal sized card. You can't praise them for building something we do not want or need. I am tired of hearing how it is amazing they put so much power in such a small card because it doesn't matter.
See, I was really looking forward to this card. I want to build a tiny PC about the size of a gaming console to stick in my entertainment center. I had hoped this card could fit that build well as it would give me the size/power I want to get great image quality out of a small form factor. AMD really botched this launch and it seems they picked review sites who weren't willing to test the thermal limits in such a small enclosure.
You haven't seen TomsHardware review then. Toms' put the Nano in a closed case for core clocks and temperature testing.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-nano,4285-10.html
You haven't seen TomsHardware review then. Toms' put the Nano in a closed case for core clocks and temperature testing.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-nano,4285-10.html
I am an [H]asshole and dont know it.
Well as bunch of reviews, and the verdict is in.
Generally slower than a 980 and faster than a 970.
100 bucks more than a 980 and 300 more than a 970.
And judging by the Fury X market we can expect the price to jump 100 to 150 if it sells as well as the Fury X.
That being said AMD has some serious balls releasing a tech demo/proof of concept card into the retail channel.
Faster than 980 when in a hot case..... Read the reviews
So if you raise the powertune on this card, I assume it will stick to 1000mhz as long as you can cool it, np?
They already have that. It's called the Fury X. It costs the same and offers better performance. The Fury X even fits in most high end enthusiast SFF cases. SFF gaming evolved to incorporate 500w+ PSUs and full sized GPUs while reducing total volume. This product is a year lateWow....this card is a beast in some titles. Nano needs a water AIO STAT !!!!!