Radeon R9 Nano Small Form Factor Video Card Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,634
Radeon R9 Nano Small Form Factor Video Card Review - This evaluation will compare the new retail purchased Radeon R9 Nano with a GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 970 N970-IX-OC small form factor video card in a mini-ITX Cooler Master Elite 110 Intel Skylake system build. We will find out if the higher priced Nano is worth the money for a 1440p and 1080p gameplay experience in a tiny footprint.
 
Nice review. Happy to see AMD bring the thunder.

I wonder if the "[H] is anti AMD" crowd is going to show up ?
 
Excellent review, thanks! I want a Nano, but as was stated, price is the primary issue.
 
Well, I already asked this in your other topic, but:

StoleMyOwnCar said:
Not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but... why that PSU? Isn't it kind of a crappy PSU? I mean that's a Corsair CS550M, right? I thought those didn't test particularly well...
Click to expand...

Also, I usually don't point out typos/strange sentences in your articles as I know that this is a hardware enthusiast site (ie not grammatically inclined)... but since I'm already posting anyway:
Of course overclocking this video card could be greatly ^ by the cooling configuration in your specific case.
Click to expand...

I think you might be missing a word or two, and likely where I put that caret; this is in the Conclusion section.
 
Speaking from the AMD crowd, the review is perfectly fine.

Anyone who complains is just doing so for attention.
 
The review is good. What I was mostly interested in knowing is how it performed in a small case given all that heat and they did a good job of showing a real world scenario.

The truth is if you are one of the people living in this niche within a niche its a great product, if you are anyone else it is a pointless product. I assume AMD knew this and the rest is a marketing plan of some sort.

I am not a fan of these tiny cases so I will never be someone who could like this product, but I can see how someone who is really into these tiny boxes would be excited. Clearly there is nothing else like it.
 
Just curious. Does a Fury X fit in the elite 110? I mean if it does, why get a Fury Nano?

Not saying it does, have always been curious if it does.
 
DASHlT said:
Just curious. Does a Fury X fit in the elite 110? I mean if it does, why get a Fury Nano?

Not saying it does, have always been curious if it does.
Click to expand...

Reading if fundamental.
 
Great review. I think this is a really nice product, I just wish it was a bit cheaper and/or came with HDMI 2.0.
 
Thats the length of the card.

Add the cooling tubes to that, its more than an inch.
 
Last edited:
To be honest I expected the heat/noise to be a deal breaker. I figured they would have nailed the size and completely neglected the noise aspect. Good for AMD. They should have sent you guys a card when it launched and just been upfront about it. It's not good value in a full size case, but it's kinda all there is in the high performance SFF market.
 
TBH I think all of the drama around the launch of the card hurt them for no reason. The way they handled the press put a pretty negative spin around an otherwise impressive, albeit expensive product.
 
Also, this review highlights why I read this website. There was a lot of furor over Kyle's article/comments on Roy Taylor and a lack of "professionalism", yet here we are with a review of the product in question and it receives a very honest and accurate review, even going so far as to award it Gold for it's intended usage. This clearly demonstrates that anyone who thinks Kyle, Brent, or any of the [H] staff are shills is wrong.
 
I don't get to be surprised very often, but every once in a while it happens.

This review did that.

I wasn't expecting the R9 Nano to perform this well.

Based on how the Fury tested, I was expecting MUCH more heat throttling, and thus I was expecting the 970 to walk away with the win.

I wonder if these Nano's have exceptionally well binned chips in order to pull this off!

Also makes you wonder why AMD were so reluctant to provide the [H] with a board.

For SFF systems it looks like this little guy really is a winner!
 
lmited samples i would guess, and they chose to give the ones they had to sites that had large SFF communities..
 
As always, a thorough, objective review.

I still am at a loss for why Roy Taylor and AMD thought [H] would not or could not be fair.
As always, we are presented the FACTs about the card and that is why many of us hang around this animal farm.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041948269 said:
I don't get to be surprised very often, but every once in a while it happens.

This review did that.

I wasn't expecting the R9 Nano to perform this well.

Based on how the Fury tested, I was expecting MUCH more heat throttling, and thus I was expecting the 970 to walk away with the win.

I wonder if these Nano's have exceptionally well binned chips in order to pull this off!

Also makes you wonder why AMD were so reluctant to provide the [H] with a board.

For SFF systems it looks like this little guy really is a winner!
Click to expand...


AMD stated in their paper launches that the nano's were the best binned chips ( which is why they won't sell them for less than the fury x). Also if you let the nano use the full 225 watts it can draw vs the 175 watts its capped at with good airflow it runs closer to the 1000mhz clock speed if not at it all the time at which point it damn near is a fury x .
 
The Mac said:
lmited samples i would guess, and they chose to give the ones they had to sites that had large SFF communities..
Click to expand...


This is exactly what AMD told us when we asked.

We always look at every outlet for sampling new products case-by-case – we look at audience profile, focus, methodology and product value prop. You’ll agree that you guys got product from us that fit your profile very well, like the Fury and Fury X. So this isn’t a sign of things to come, this is simply how we roll out Nano from a sampling perspective.

I hope this clarifies things, that’s all there’s behind this decision.
Click to expand...
 
I am confused. All the marketing shows that the Nano should have a target temp of 75 degrees.

blog.newegg.com/amd-r9-nano-the-fastest-mini-itx-card/ (this link doesn't work for some reason unless copy pasted)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review,3.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-r9-nano-details-revealed,29935.html

http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTQ0MDY0OTIxM1ZuaVQyNmRKaDRfMV81X2wuZ2lm

Why is it targeting 85 by default but being marketed at 75? That doesn't make sense.

Otherwise, wonderful article.
 
Last edited:
I was already expecting the Nano to be awesome for the space it was specifically designed for, so there are no surprises for me here. That being said, what I've been wanting to see is what is coming in the next review... Some people buy cards specifically to overclock them, so the 'value' question for the Nano in a regular case comes to that. As mentioned, these are supposed to be the best binned chips.

i.e. - If I buy a Nano, put a waterblock on it and overclock the shit out of it, is the $$$ spent doing this worth it vs buying the (already water cooled) Fury X or a 980Ti?
 
Pretty cool review.
Very much enjoyed reading it today.

If I needed a dinky GPU and had the cash, nano would be a great choice.......but.......does it blend?:eek:
 
Imagine if AMD tried charging more for the Radeon 4850 over the Radeon 4870 because it was "Slower, but a smaller card" I still see the Nano as being overpriced. Thank you for the evaluation, it's appreciated.
 
Sorta surprised no issues with coil whine, in most reviews it seems pretty bad, seems at least a few cards don't have that issue.
 
Rauelius said:
Imagine if AMD tried charging more for the Radeon 4850 over the Radeon 4870 because it was "Slower, but a smaller card" I still see the Nano as being overpriced. Thank you for the evaluation, it's appreciated.
Click to expand...

Unless they made a super tiny 4850 that I haven't seen that's a bad comparison.

Looks like Fury drivers have improved a bit. I hope to see some insanely small builds using this card.
 
kcthebrewer said:
I am confused. All the marketing shows that the Nano should have a target temp of 75 degrees.

Why is it targeting 85 by default but being marketed at 75? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You would have to talk to AMD about that. We just bought the card and played games with it.

trick0502 said:
how about a nano system give away?
Click to expand...

When we get done wit it, I will sell it....since I paid for it. That's a lot of money tied up in dormant inventory.

Chris_B said:
Sorta surprised no issues with coil whine, in most reviews it seems pretty bad, seems at least a few cards don't have that issue.
Click to expand...

Cannot comment on that except to say this is a retail purchased card, and our exact experiences with it.
 
Yar, good review. Wasn't expecting it either because of how odd AMD was being with their messaging surrounding it. It really sounded like they wanted to prevent the GPU from being thoroughly reviewed - thought they had something to hide.

Still, impressive little card. My favourite thing is the lack of noise, thought for sure with that kind of power in a tiny little package, noise would become a factor. Looking forward to seeing how the little guy will perform in a larger rig - not its designed purpose, but it'd be interesting to see how well it will scale.

This review has made me excited for how the X2 will perform.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041948269 said:
I don't get to be surprised very often, but every once in a while it happens.

This review did that.

I wasn't expecting the R9 Nano to perform this well.

Based on how the Fury tested, I was expecting MUCH more heat throttling, and thus I was expecting the 970 to walk away with the win.
Click to expand...

I wasn't surprised the Nano did so well.

Anyone who has actually read reviews about the Gigabyte and Asus GTX 970 Mini ITX cards know those are some of the worst designed coolers ever. The Gigbyte is loud, and unless your case is particularly airy, not very high boost clocks. The Asus is better with an actual backplate, but the cooler still leaves a lot to be desired.

It's easy to outperform a couple of hack designs done by companies just phoning it in. Both Gigabyte and Asus are capable of much better.

But the REAL question still is: was it in Asus/Gigabyte's monetary best interests to spend more than 5 bucks on a fan design for a 1440p mini itx card? Or is AMD wasting their money with this specialty card design?
 
Last edited:
cooooooool! yep, its a niche product. gold award for sff case usage, great review guys!
 
What the hell was AMD scared about when they stiffed [H] on the Nano review sample?

You need nothing short of a 980 and then some to take out this card in a SFF form factor test, and last i checked there aren't any 980s/980Tis in SFF form factor to do that.
 
I was skeptical of the Nano at first but I can see the niche market angle working well. My only problem is the lack of HDMI 2.0. Of all the things not to include a) in a flagship, and b) in a flagship specifically designed for small form factor PCs, it is my only real disappointment with the card.

I'm scheduled to upgrade my HTPC in about a year. I could see using the successor for the Nano if it can support HDMI 2.0 at that time. You really can't argue with the performance though I would like to see if other vendors offer custom cooling over time.

Thanks for the detailed review, [H], as always. I love that you stick to your standards.
 
As,always, I really enjoyed reading this review. I am amazed at how this very specialized niche' card was able to hold itself especially while keeping its sound profile under control.
 
Thanks for the review. Also, Fuck You to all the AMD fanboys who claimed AMD couldn't get a fair review here. What will you cry about next?

It actually looks like a nice card, with two major caveats that I can see:

1. The price. Sure, they don't have any real competition at that form factor, but the price is just too high imo.
2. As mentioned in the review, AMD themselves tout this as a 4k card. Not having HDMI 2.0 support on a "4k card" that is designed to be used exclusively in a SFF media PC (ie. connected to a tv) is inexcusable.
 
Awesome review!

I actually just bought an Osmi which is one of the smallest SFF cases. I like nice things, I have a Titan X and Fury X, but as I noted last week from my calculations the Fury Nano is ~10% faster than the 970 for 100% more cost OC vs OC. That's steep. I just couldn't do it. Not even drunk. Your review basically validated my predictions.
 
Very fair and thorough review for a good card, but the elephant in the room is still that almost no one will be buying it. The problem is the number of SFF/mini-ITX cases that don't take a full length card or at least the short-board Zotac 970 can be counted on one hand.

Brings a tear to the eye, really.
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
Awesome review!

I actually just bought an Osmi which is one of the smallest SFF cases. I like nice things, I have a Titan X and Fury X, but as I noted last week from my calculations the Fury Nano is ~10% faster than the 970 for 100% more cost OC vs OC. That's steep. I just couldn't do it. Not even drunk. Your review basically validated my predictions.
Click to expand...

Obviously your priorities are your own, but the Nano is more than 10% faster than the oc 970. Comparing average FPS:
Project Cars: 10.45% difference
Witcher 3: 18.00% difference
Far Cry 4: 29.25% difference
Battlefield 4: 16.45% difference
Average of those 4 differences: 18.54%, in favor of the Nano

Comparing minimum FPS:
Project Cars: 31.58% difference
Witcher 3: 16.39% difference
Far Cry 4: 24.72% difference
(no minimums for BF4)
Average: 24.23%, in favor of the Nano
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top