Are you buying a Nano

Are you buying a Nano

  • Total voters
    220
No because I have no need of a card the size of the Nano at this current point-in-time. In the future, if I do happen to need a SFF sized card for gaming, it will definitely be an nVidia based product as I prefer to have cards with PhysX capabilities. If I am not gaming on the SFF then I will get the card that will fit a SFF case and provide the best performance for the buck; whether AMD or nVidia.
 
i would get one because of the size, love itx things but nvidia got me locked up on the PhysX, wouldnt get a new card to have to tone down the settings in some games.
 
I love small builds, but I don't intend to do one right now. And when and if I do, I'll buy the best card that fits into the case I'll choose, whatever that card will be.

So the answer is: probably not.
 
What AMD needs is a cut down version of Nano, maybe Nano Lite that has 80% of it's performance with an even lower TDP priced at $300. It would effectively kill off 970 GTX and would interest a ton of people. There's a few things that would explain why this hasn't happened:

1. Fury X GPU die is very expensive to produce with thin margins.
2. HBM scarcity
3. 28 nm is so mature that they hardly have any failed dies to sell as cut down in mass quantities.

I'm guessing the answer is probably a combination of all three which sucks for AMD.
 
5150Joker said:
What AMD needs is a cut down version of Nano, maybe Nano Lite that has 80% of it's performance with an even lower TDP priced at $300. It would effectively kill off 970 GTX and would interest a ton of people. .
Click to expand...

How's it going to "kill off" a 970 at 80% performance when it's not much faster at 100% performance? OC the 970 and it gets even uglier.

These Fiji cards must just be hella expensive produce if they couldn't even make the Nano like $599.
 
DPI said:
How's it going to "kill off" a 970 at 80% performance when it's not much faster at 100% performance? OC the 970 and it gets even uglier.
Click to expand...

Digital Foundry saw up to 30% faster performance than 970 GTX at 1440p so a lower TDP card at 80-85% of the performance of nano would put it in line with a stock 970 GTX, maybe even a bit faster. At the lower wattage (assuming it would have a similar cooler), it would have some more wiggle room for overclocking as well. Not up to 970 standards but enough to sway people over to the AMD side. My use of "kill off" was obviously greatly exaggerated but it would give it ample competition.
 
I will end up getting 2 of these for my daughters builds but going to wait a little while and see if the price comes down some. The only real complaint I have is the price, but I guess I cannot complain to much because people are doing the reverse with the gtx 980 ti. You are paying for the fastest in its size bracket. Yes you can overclock the cheaper one, but you pay for it with the added noise and heat.
 
dcds1 said:
I will end up getting 2 of these for my daughters builds but going to wait a little while and see if the price comes down some. The only real complaint I have is the price, but I guess I cannot complain to much because people are doing the reverse with the gtx 980 ti. You are paying for the fastest in its size bracket. Yes you can overclock the cheaper one, but you pay for it with the added noise and heat.
Click to expand...
I'm almost certain that overclocked ITX GTX 970 is going to be cooler and quieter.
 
since the new cards are priced in the stratosphere for average Joe type of people, not a chance at the current price point.
 
I'd rather get the Fury X. It costs the same. It's water cooled.
 
This thread and poll are pointless. It's a niche product, with an extremely limited target audience.

Where is your thread about the itx sized 970, or any variety of sff case that has a max card length?

This is a thread started by a guy who has said outright he won't buy any amd products, and thinks they're a shitty company. Why don't you fuck back off to the Nvidia section instead of trying to make issues here.
 
TurboGLH said:
This thread and poll are pointless. It's a niche product, with an extremely limited target audience.

Where is your thread about the itx sized 970, or any variety of sff case that has a max card length?

This is a thread started by a guy who has said outright he won't buy any amd products, and thinks they're a shitty company. Why don't you fuck back off to the Nvidia section instead of trying to make issues here.
Click to expand...
The poll is simple and made in an AMD forum. No comparison to the 970 required since different performance and price points. Also the only issues that are being made are by you. Everyone else is having a civil conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a tough choice between the Nano and the 970 for me, but I'll be getting a 970 this month.

I had considered a Nano for my ITX system, I'm certainly limited in space. While the Nano does offer the best performance in it's form factor, the price is just too high.

Price:performance is top, secondarily it'll be working with a 4K TV over HDMI 2.0.... If the Nano was more like $450, I'd be all over it, instead of the 970.
 
Wizzard said:
It's a tough choice between the Nano and the 970 for me, but I'll be getting a 970 this month.

I had considered a Nano for my ITX system, I'm certainly limited in space. While the Nano does offer the best performance in it's form factor, the price is just too high.

Price:performance is top, secondarily it'll be working with a 4K TV over HDMI 2.0.... If the Nano was more like $450, I'd be all over it, instead of the 970.
Click to expand...

The nano isnt hdmi 2.0... We are waiting on a DP to HDMI 2.0 adapter from amd...

PS: the 970 is the most popular card on steam right now, which takes a lot considering its been out on the market less than a year, and it had "3.5gb ramgate".
 
TurboGLH said:
This thread and poll are pointless. It's a niche product, with an extremely limited target audience.

Where is your thread about the itx sized 970, or any variety of sff case that has a max card length?

This is a thread started by a guy who has said outright he won't buy any amd products, and thinks they're a shitty company. Why don't you fuck back off to the Nvidia section instead of trying to make issues here.
Click to expand...

Agreed, pointless poll. Simple question but a stupid one.

KickAssCop said:
quoted removed post .
Click to expand...

Quality post OP just like your poll, classy stuff.

Frothy and emotional about video cards, calling someone "nothing" on a tech forum, some juvenile homo-erotic insult. Really ticking all the boxes. :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titan X all the way for now in my game system however, I have been considering getting a SFF system going. I bought the Alienware Alpha and I really like that it can sit right under my monitor stand and it doesn't heat my room up - it plays World of Tanks just fine. I would probably go Fury X though as the cases are just as small - so I don't really get the appeal of the Nano. I'm not going to spend the $ for a custom case to make it as small as possible. The ones you can buy off the shelf so to speak are just fine.
 
Wow, people get so emotional over video cards. :D It is entertaining to me though, so please continue.

At a different price, the Nano would be very appealing to me. That's really the only fault I have with it. I don't think it will hang at $650 for very long though (ex: 295x2 price drops). The 295x2 was a niche product card, and even it had(still has??) the crown of being the fastest video card on the planet. I'm not sure how long it was before the price cut, but at the end there, I know they were going for half of what MSRP was.

I think they will sale all they can make for now, cause it's new and the few people who want one, will jump on it. But once that niche is filled, I think the sales of this card will plummet and they'll have to drop prices to something more reasonable to move the remaining units. I don't think they would ever cut it as much as the 295x2 was cut, but I think it will come down some.
 
No, I would get the Fury X if I had a size restriction or the 980 TI if I could get a full sized card.
 
Considering that the performance is almost directly between a 970 and 980ti, the nano should be priced some where in between. If it was $450 I would get it and that was my plan when I heard about it. At $650 I would find a slightly bigger case and get the fury X or if I was obsessed with going as small as possible I would get the mini 970 since it would run cooler and quieter plus give me HDMI ports. There is no situation that I would buy the Nano at its current price.
 
5150Joker said:
Digital Foundry saw up to 30% faster performance than 970 GTX at 1440p so a lower TDP card at 80-85% of the performance of nano would put it in line with a stock 970 GTX, maybe even a bit faster. At the lower wattage (assuming it would have a similar cooler), it would have some more wiggle room for overclocking as well. Not up to 970 standards but enough to sway people over to the AMD side. My use of "kill off" was obviously greatly exaggerated but it would give it ample competition.
Click to expand...

You're kind of cherry picking 1440p, but I doubt many people are running 1440p in their living room.. But as long as we are cherry picking, Nano couldn't keep up with 980 even at 1440p in several benches, Witcher 3 for example.

More importantly, how about 1080p, which is the res of the majority of HDTV's that people would be likely to drive with a SFF/HTPC? That's where it falls down. So an OC'd 970-ITX could be on par with the Nano or very close at that res. For half the price, cooler and with less noise.

The only thing the Nano will be killing off is AMD.
 
Last edited:
c@Nc3r said:
Considering that the performance is almost directly between a 970 and 980ti, the nano should be priced some where in between. If it was $450 I would get it and that was my plan when I heard about it. At $650 I would find a slightly bigger case and get the fury X or if I was obsessed with going as small as possible I would get the mini 970 since it would run cooler and quieter plus give me HDMI ports. There is no situation that I would buy the Nano at its current price.
Click to expand...

I really think $500-$550 was the sweet spot for this card.

The 390X covers the $400-$500 segment pretty well (even though not mini ITX).

Also Tom's (ugh) is the only site that tested against an overclocked 970 ITX (I didn't see where they disclosed what speeds they OC'd it to however). At 1080p there is negligible difference between an OC 970 ITX and a Nano. Everything appears to be playable at or above 60fps on both cards at max settings on almost every game.

At anything above 1080p the Nano destroys the 970 ITX OC (between 5-50% at 1440p).

But we are also comparing $290 to $650 as it stands right now.
 
Last edited:
I doubt many people are even hooking their computer up to a tv to play video games. I have a 4k tv in my living room but I am not about to give up eyefinity for that. It is fun for controller games like gauntlet or to learn a new song using Rocksmith. People are spouting about tiny sff cases being a very niche market, I bet you will find 4K tv is in the same boat.
 
Nope. My 3GB 7950's are still kickin' at 2560x1600. I also don't need small form factor cards.
 
kcthebrewer said:
I really think $500-$550 was the sweet spot for this card.

The 390X covers the $400-$500 segment pretty well (even though not mini ITX).

Also Tom's (ugh) is the only site that tested against an overclocked 970 ITX (I didn't see where they disclosed what speeds they OC'd it to however). At 1080p there is negligible difference between an OC 970 ITX and a Nano. Everything appears to be playable at or above 60fps on both cards at max settings on almost every game.

At anything above 1080p the Nano destroys the 970 ITX OC (between 5-50% at 1440p).

But we are also comparing $290 to $650 as it stands right now.
Click to expand...

IMO the 390X needs a price reduction also. I like all the AMD cards, its just that IMO they all need to drop in price $50-$100 and the nano needs to be about $100 under the fury X. That's just my opinion though based on what NVidia currently has.
 
Stupid poll. You should be asking: If you are in the market for a new card RIGHT NOW, will you buy one for your specific build.

Why the hell would anyone buy one now if they already own a card of equal strength...
 
Had high hopes for the Nano, and it could be a very capable little card, but not with the lacking features, limiting frame buffer, and exorbitant price tag. :(
 
Nope, if I was going to buy something new for ~$650 now it would be a 980ti
 
No, because I value money enough to not wish to flush it down the toilet buying low quality products at luxury prices.
 
Revdarian said:
Great little hardware.

Totally wrong pricepoint.

My current verdict= no.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would have considered one for the future just for it's size even in my full sized case but for $650 it's just way too much. For that price it's a 980 Ti all the way. I honestly thought the card would find a price point of around $350.
 
If it is supposed to be a htpc card then it needs 4k60 support without a non existent dp to hdmi 2 adapter..... and for the $ needs to actually push 4k ...

Just my 2c however.... now one of these built into an alpha type device and then we would be cooking
 
I'm using SFF and not even remotely interested in a Nano. Besides I already had enough of cookie cutter theme park games with slightly prettier graphics than the last.
 
DPI said:
You're kind of cherry picking 1440p, but I doubt many people are running 1440p in their living room.. But as long as we are cherry picking, Nano couldn't keep up with 980 even at 1440p in several benches, Witcher 3 for example.

More importantly, how about 1080p, which is the res of the majority of HDTV's that people would be likely to drive with a SFF/HTPC? That's where it falls down. So an OC'd 970-ITX could be on par with the Nano or very close at that res. For half the price, cooler and with less noise.

The only thing the Nano will be killing off is AMD.
Click to expand...

Well they won't have much luck using it as an HTPC in the living room since Fury card's don't support HDMI 2.0 or HEVC encoding.
crying.gif
So that's why I picked the 1440p resolution because I'm assuming this card is just for those guys that have a mini-ITX case fetish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top