R9 Nano Review Thread

Discussion in 'AMD Flavor' started by KickAssCop, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. thedocta45

    thedocta45 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    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.
     
  2. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    29,075
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    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.
     
  3. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    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
     
  4. thedocta45

    thedocta45 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    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: Sep 14, 2015
  5. noko

    noko [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,416
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    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.
     
  6. Reality

    Reality [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,887
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    they'll be sold out just like the fury cards have been

    which is hilarious IMO
     
  7. noko

    noko [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,416
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Meaning the prices are too low, AMD maybe should ask a little bit higher price :eek:
     
  8. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,034
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Or make more than 10 per week.
     
  9. KickAssCop

    KickAssCop [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,580
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    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.
     
  10. Rizen

    Rizen [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,225
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Either the stock is significantly better on the Nano than everyone expected or they simply aren't selling.
     
  11. defaultluser

    defaultluser [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,696
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006

    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: Sep 15, 2015
  12. KickAssCop

    KickAssCop [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,580
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    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.
     
  13. limitedaccess

    limitedaccess [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,498
    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    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.
     
  14. Michaelius

    Michaelius [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,684
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    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.
     
  15. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,121
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Just checked newegg again, they are not sold out.
     
  16. Flopper

    Flopper [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,642
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    seems to me the x version have issue with yields but the Fury version is plenty with the best price/performance at entusiast end.
     
  17. DrRetina

    DrRetina Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    239
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    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.
     
  18. Rvenger

    Rvenger [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,800
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    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.
     
  19. DejaWiz

    DejaWiz Oracle of Unfortunate Truths

    Messages:
    19,263
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    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
     
  20. J3RK

    J3RK [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,242
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    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: Sep 15, 2015
  21. Revdarian

    Revdarian 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,470
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
  22. J3RK

    J3RK [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,242
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    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
     
  23. defaultluser

    defaultluser [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,696
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    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!
     
  24. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,034
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    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.
     
  25. DejaWiz

    DejaWiz Oracle of Unfortunate Truths

    Messages:
    19,263
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    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.
     
  26. Rvenger

    Rvenger [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,800
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012

    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.
     
  27. illli

    illli [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,248
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    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.
     
  28. Michaelius

    Michaelius [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,684
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Most of AMD products are overpriced on release and need price correction few months later.
     
  29. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    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: Sep 15, 2015
  30. DeadSkull

    DeadSkull [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,482
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    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.
     
  31. J3RK

    J3RK [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,242
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    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.
     
  32. DejaWiz

    DejaWiz Oracle of Unfortunate Truths

    Messages:
    19,263
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041857314&postcount=185

    Thank you, J3RK. Damn, reading sucks...
     
  33. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    29,075
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    It's P = I x V.
     
  34. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,034
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    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
     
  35. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013

    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.
     
  36. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Where did you guys go to school?

    Watts is POWER.

    Here is some wiki education.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
     
  37. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,034
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    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
     
  38. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    19,034
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
  39. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
  40. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,403
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    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: Sep 15, 2015