R9 Nano Review Thread

The majority of the market will still place much more emphasis on performance, noise and temperatures which is why designs will still skew larger even if the PCB itself does not need to be. I mean personally even for a smaller sized case build I'd still rather opt for a larger 2-fan sized heatsink solution just for noise reasons at anything approaching ~150w (even more so if higher).

Also the space savings from HBM are somewhat overstated because most current board designs aren't very space optimized themselves. The GTX 970 full sized board designs really shows this, there is a ton of empty space but you still effectively leverage that large of a board to fit the large heatsinks - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/3.html

Actually the Sapphire Fury approach was quite innovative, in terms of having the heatsink overhang for airflow, and it may be likely we see more future designs adopt that with shorter PCB boards. Sapphire Fury-X - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/3.html

In practice the space savings is not that much, a 3 inch length savings is not going to matter to most people, even those aiming at smaller cases.

Just to expand a bit regarding board design, look at the Nano's PCB compared to the Asus Fury's or the Fury X -
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/4.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/front.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9621/R9_Nano_Straight_On_Bare_Front_RGB_5inch_new.jpg

The reason the Nano is small is more than simply due to HBM space savings.
 
Last edited:
We totally agree that the nano chip with that cooler have a chance of getting silent, afterall that cooler can handel 275w.

But almost evry review reported coil whine :(

Put it on the 175w nano. get rid of the coil wine, i i trow my money at it.

But now that could maybe be done with the 980 to, if the pcb was shorter.
 
limitedaccess said:
The majority of the market will still place much more emphasis on performance, noise and temperatures which is why designs will still skew larger even if the PCB itself does not need to be. I mean personally even for a smaller sized case build I'd still rather opt for a larger 2-fan sized heatsink solution just for noise reasons at anything approaching ~150w (even more so if higher).

Also the space savings from HBM are somewhat overstated because most current board designs aren't very space optimized themselves. The GTX 970 full sized board designs really shows this, there is a ton of empty space but you still effectively leverage that large of a board to fit the large heatsinks - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/3.html

Actually the Sapphire Fury approach was quite innovative, in terms of having the heatsink overhang for airflow, and it may be likely we see more future designs adopt that with shorter PCB boards. Sapphire Fury-X - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/3.html

In practice the space savings is not that much, a 3 inch length savings is not going to matter to most people, even those aiming at smaller cases.

Just to expand a bit regarding board design, look at the Nano's PCB compared to the Asus Fury's or the Fury X -
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/4.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/front.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9621/R9_Nano_Straight_On_Bare_Front_RGB_5inch_new.jpg

The reason the Nano is small is more than simply due to HBM space savings.
Click to expand...

Sapphire Fury over @PCPer. That's what we're going to end up with.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Radeon-R9-Fury-4GB-Review-CrossFire-Results

ZRjiNMFl.png
 
cageymaru said:
Sapphire Fury over @PCPer. That's what we're going to end up with.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Radeon-R9-Fury-4GB-Review-CrossFire-Results

ZRjiNMFl.png
Click to expand...

Performance wise even a tad slower, but u have round 100w less to cool, wich will result in almost silent. And still can go inside a slim case with limited airflow.

But yes, i pay extra for that. If it hadnt been for the coil whine, it would been a cooler almost like that i would mount on it,

Edit: hmm i could actually settel for 980 performance and dead silent with that card, it just have to undervolted and downclocked some, sometimes i can be a bit slow :) , depends how much performace will be lost downclooking it to same tdp as th Nano.
 
kac77 said:
Yep and the Nano beats it. The point. As for the 780 I all ready have it....see
KVMTitle2_zpsy5yoecps.jpg

Why would I buy the same card with the same performance that won't fit in my next build? Apparently you think that's a good idea. i don't. Therefore I don't think you're good at giving good advice since you want me to buy the same thing I already have.



Dude if I can run a board without doing that I'm going to do that and everyone else would too. You pretend like everyone is going for top performance above all else when they aren't. This isn't a hard concept but for whatever reason a few and obviously you seem to miss the plane.


I think there's more people like that then you think.


You're proving the point. You list supposed positive things then your brain doesn't process them and then you ask me, "Why?" I know why I would get it and you don't. That's not my problem. I can talk to you about it but it's not my problem.


This was said before. Ask for new material. Thanks.



Not really since for some reason there's a select few that can't understand that builds can have power AND space limits.
Click to expand...

Your not going to get it 99% of users would be better served by the Fury X, the Nano might fit the usage for 1% in the SFF/8 pin market.

Its such a limited product I am shocked that AMD released it, have fun wasting 700 bucks on a card when a Fury X would have been a better card to buy.
 
E
thedocta45 said:
Your not going to get it 99% of users would be better served by the Fury X, the Nano might fit the usage for 1% in the SFF/8 pin market.

Its such a limited product I am shocked that AMD released it, have fun wasting 700 bucks on a card when a Fury X would have been a better card to buy.
Click to expand...

Whats the fun with ordinary builds, nothing [H]ard abaut slapping ordinary parts into a case and done with that, ordinary is boring.

But the fondation has to be there for a fun build, and well it isnt there with 28nm GPU, sadly.

Edit: Beeing in the 1% is what is fun, but 175w can maybe be tamed, and is the best / closest 28nm can give us 1% eres this time, but coil whine is a nono :(
 
I kinda envy thoose 1% wich poisen is watercooling, they have lots of fun toys :(
 
Feels more like nano is the 'budget' option for SFF gaming from AMD, furyx2 is looking really promising if they keep the power draw on par with two nano's and keep it under 10".

Assuming it isn't priced insanely high, of course. :rolleyes:
 
Is there a list of cases that are too small to fit anything but a Nano?

Have any case companies mentioned new cases to highlight the Nano?

It'd be nice if Newegg let you search for cases based on specific dimensions like max gpu or psu length.
 
I listed 3 cases a few pages back that is limited to either 170mm or 190mm. Newegg is at least nice enough to give you dimensions. They have even been putting them in inches so you don't have to have a tab open and keep converting mm to inches to have a clue of the size.
 
dcds1 said:
I listed 3 cases a few pages back that is limited to either 170mm or 190mm. Newegg is at least nice enough to give you dimensions. They have even been putting them in inches so you don't have to have a tab open and keep converting mm to inches to have a clue of the size.
Click to expand...

the RAIJINTEK is 170mm
LIAN LI PC-TU100B is 190mm
and
LIAN LI PC-Q03B is 180mm

170mm is 6.7 inches
180mm is 7.1 inches
190mm is 7.5 inches
10mm is about .4 inches

You can fit a Fury X in most 190mm cases.
 
Last edited:
ITX is a niche. ITX fans buying one that doesn't fit a full sized VGA is even more so---bad purchase decision as well.
 
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.
 
Too bad Nvidia got the 3dfx IP's, AMD could have named this card the Banshee for its coil whine....
 
Igroock said:
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...
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy. Nano is not "10% faster than a 980". What cherry picked stat are you taking that from? They're pretty much even in most benchmarks. And Nano is slower than 980 in most 1080 benchmarks, which is a concern for people interested in a Nano for an SFF/HTPC build, compounded by the fact the majority of HDTVs are still 1080p.

Nevermind there is no way even the most entrenched zealot can spin the fact that a OC'd 970-ITX is on par with a Nono at less than half the price.
 
The 970 ITX cards are not standard width (some refer to this as height). This can be a concern in some cases that never anticipated and thus accounted for such a phenomenon.

Other than this small note, there is indeed drastic price difference to be paid for the Nano, despite being a better performer.
 
Igroock said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is this. When the gtx 980 was 200 dollars more. It was the fastest card out there. When your the fastest card out there, your allowed to charge a premium.

Nowadays for 480 dollars you can get gtx 980's which are overclocked and are the same speed as nano. Add in the free game and your basically looking at similar value to AMD better priced offerings.

In the itx form factor lineup, Fury X is nano's worst enemy. It's faster and fits in all but one of the cases Fury nano fits in and is just a better card across the board.

Fury X even beats it in efficiency when it's power limit is set the same as nanos.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/942-4/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html

Overall the problem with AMD at the moment is even though it's 10 months later since the gtx 980/970 launched which bombed AMD sales, they don't have a more appealing lineup even those they launched their new lineup.

Right now you have the 390x and 390 replacing the 290x and 290 which basically match the gtx 980 and 970 for performance but their pricing makes them generally less appealing products. Add in the overclocked selection which an be found at $470 and $300 and you basically have the same gap again as the 390x/390 dont really have overclocked models.

Compared to the 290x and 290 which were about 10% slower than the gtx 980 and 970 respectively but they cost anywhere from 250 dollars less to 80 dollars less for that drop in performance, the 390x and 390 in comparison are 40 dollars cheaper and the same price respectively. Add in AMD took out the never settled bundle for the 3xx series while Nvidia added AAA games and its a tougher sell now than it was previously.

Considering AMD sales were really bad even when AMD had that outstanding value advantage about 3 months after the gtx 980/970 and sold poorly, I don't know how in today's market is AMD going to do much better with that value proposition gone.

Same goes for the Fury lineup. Basically the Fury lineup has a similar performance disadvantage to the gtx 980 ti as the the gtx 980 to 290x lineup. However this time around, AMD decided to charge the same pricing as the gtx 980 ti lineup. Considering the gtx 980/970 blew AMD out of the water for sales when AMD had the strong value proposition going for them, how does AMD expect to compete when they are offering worse performance for the same money? Add in the 290x/290 had atleast availability and supply going for them and the situation hasn't improved for AMD from 10 months ago.

QDemon19 said:
WCCFTech article summarizes multiple reviews and concludes that at 4K, the Nano is 10% faster than the 980.

If one were getting the Nano for 1080 gaming, well, I would say that they were either ignorant (in terms of graphics cards) or just trying to find a reason to part with $650.
Click to expand...

4k is only one resolution, it's single digit at 1440p and tied at 1080p. Nano is too slow for 4k and doesn't have HDMI 2.0 for HTPC use.
 
Last edited:
Right now for HTPC at 4k, neither Nvidia nor AMD should be considered.

Nvidia's 4:2:0 is less than ideal(and that is ignoring the HDCP deal), and AMD lacks it(HDMI 2.0) entirely.


Now if the DP to HDMI 2.0 active adapters stopped being vaporware and showed somewhere then things would be different.
 
Revdarian said:
Right now for HTPC at 4k, neither Nvidia nor AMD should be considered.

Nvidia's 4:2:0 is less than ideal(and that is ignoring the HDCP deal), and AMD lacks it(HDMI 2.0) entirely.


Now if the DP to HDMI 2.0 active adapters stopped being vaporware and showed somewhere then things would be different.
Click to expand...

I'd just buy a 55" 4K FreeSync monitor for my living room and be happy. They only cost $1,059. DisplayPort in the living room hooked to some nice video cards would be beast!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WASABI-MANG...1-2-Monitor-/131543308675?hash=item1ea0979983
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
^ it makes plenty of sense.

But the price of the Nano doesn't :)

This would be more interesting at $550. I can't think of too many "ITX" cases that can fit a 600watt PSU but can't fit a full length GPU. Super niche.

The HBM thing is seriously cool though. Once AMD improves on this tech they could have a killer GPU on their hands.
 
Zinn said:
^ it makes plenty of sense.

But the price of the Nano doesn't :)

This would be more interesting at $550. I can't think of too many "ITX" cases that can fit a 600watt PSU but can't fit a full length GPU. Super niche.

The HBM thing is seriously cool though. Once AMD improves on this tech they could have a killer GPU on their hands.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my gripe with the Nano...

1. Performance does not justify $650 price tag against their own R9 Fury lineup or the competition.
2. Lacks a lot of features.
3. Power draw and heat output is high, requiring a larger PSU and chassis with ample airflow.
4. Ultra-small mITX size that caters to but a sliver of the enthusiast market, but negated because of the above points.

...AMD has more of an early working proof-of-concept going on with the Nano that still needs a lot of tweaking. To me, it feels as if AMD was betting hard on the process shrink after 28nm for the entire Fury line, and when that couldn't happen, they decided to execute it using the current process instead of holding off...which is going to cost them dearly. The money they spent on continuing to persue a Nano release may have been better spent on expanding/refining the regular R9 Fury lineup. Instead, we have two niche products...Fury X and Nano...that are priced the same, perform a bit differently, and are targeted towards very specific customers of very specific physical environments (have requirements that further diminish their market appeal).

I was really pulling for the Nano...was hoping to see consistent performance somewhere between Fury and Fury X, a low power draw in the ballpark of 160-175W load, and priced between $320-370. Would have made for a winning formula that appeals to single GPU mITX users and multi-GPU users for uATX and larger.
 
Last edited:
Well its not the price that is so bad, but that darn coil whine is a party pooper, :(

Becouse, this niche it is aimed at have other demands , than just performance, and i do think amd knows that , and tried it, 42db as a starting point is not to bad, but coil whine, that is just bad, bad, bad, Made me depressed, damn
 
I would get a Nano if 14/16nm process was not under a year out. I know you can wait forever but my 7970 3GB from launch still works great for everything but 4K. $650 for a card that cant do 4K gaming with proper refresh rates, without HDMI 2.0 and only 4GB ram, will be considered seriously dated when the next gen of GPU's hit the market. But hey, my 4K monitor with Freesync begs me to get a AMD Nano so I might give in when the prices are dropped a bit.
 
And seriously, it must be a gremlin among AMDs engeneers, the fury X , pumpnoise, the nano, coil whine.

IT IS NOT ACETABEL, dam it.
 
I find it hard to imagine many people have cases where they can fit a Nano but not a Fury X. Same price... Why not go Fury X. I just did a SFF build with a 250d/4690k/h55/Fury X and it was beautiful.

I hope [H] does a 970 mini vs Fury Nano, OC vs OC, and just tears the nano apart.

After OC the Fury Nano would be 10%(?) faster for double the price...
 
Yeah, coil whine is a big turnoff for me as well, as I have an open case. Hopefully Greenland will soon be in the horizon.
 
DrRetina said:
Yeah, coil whine is a big turnoff for me as well, as I have an open case. Hopefully Greenland will soon be in the horizon.
Click to expand...


Well the nano is in stock here, and if it hadnt been for the coil whine, i would have order it.
 
Zinn said:
^ it makes plenty of sense.

But the price of the Nano doesn't :)

This would be more interesting at $550. I can't think of too many "ITX" cases that can fit a 600watt PSU but can't fit a full length GPU. Super niche.

The HBM thing is seriously cool though. Once AMD improves on this tech they could have a killer GPU on their hands.
Click to expand...

No, unless you would take the time to describe what that chart is supposed to be showing, it makes no sense at all. The chart has no indicators of what it is supposed to be saying.
 
My only suggestion for the upcoming hard review is:

Add a few more games like Mordor or anything else that is intense out today.
And please for the love of God do not bench against 980 ti reference. I have seen fury x at 669 which is price of asus strix or sc+ from evga and only 20 short of the gigabyte you have. Benching it with reference just because it is 649 whereas other cards are 20-40 more at this price point is ridiculous.
 
Good grief, if your case supports a larger card, can handle the increase power and heat and accommodate beefy power supply etc. then Nano is not the solution.

Any case that supports a full length card will have a dimension 12" plus somewhere, plus if a full size power supply is used just adds to the other dimensions. At best a large SFF solution if you can call it at that.

OCing and SFF is really almost a joke but would be rather interesting if can be done reasonably and would be a new art.

The Nano cooling tech is very unique and looks to be very effective. Liked how AnAndTech was able to simply get the card to rev up to near 1000mhz by adjusting in the driver Power Tune setting and it maintained great cooling yet. That TDP controls the frequency until I guess temperature gets too high. Hitting 1000mhz or close without any extras was not an issue.
 
KickAssCop said:
My only suggestion for the upcoming hard review is:

Add a few more games like Mordor or anything else that is intense out today.
And please for the love of God do not bench against 980 ti reference. I have seen fury x at 669 which is price of asus strix or sc+ from evga and only 20 short of the gigabyte you have. Benching it with reference just because it is 649 whereas other cards are 20-40 more at this price point is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't see the point benchmarking it against a 980 Ti, get the smallest case possible, make it as quiet as possible and then put in every other card that will fit. It only has a price comparison, hell why not also test with it a Radeon 295 X2 which in many things will even beat a Titan X. That is a dual GPU - so? Same price if not cheaper now.
 
noko said:
Good grief, if your case supports a larger card, can handle the increase power and heat and accommodate beefy power supply etc. then Nano is not the solution.

2. Any case that supports a full length card will have a dimension 12" plus somewhere, plus if a full size power supply is used just adds to the other dimensions. At best a large SFF solution if you can call it at that.

3. OCing and SFF is really almost a joke but would be rather interesting if can be done reasonably and would be a new art.

4. The Nano cooling tech is very unique and looks to be very effective. Liked how AnAndTech was able to simply get the card to rev up to near 1000mhz by adjusting in the driver Power Tune setting and it maintained great cooling yet. That TDP controls the frequency until I guess temperature gets too high. Hitting 1000mhz or close without any extras was not an issue.
Click to expand...

1. At $650...what is it a solution for?

2. The power draw and heat output of the Nano pretty much requires a beefy power supply and chassis with ample airflow...again, what solution is it for?

3. False. There are plenty of mITX and uATX MoBos on the market that are tailored for OC'ing.

4. It's only effective when adequate chassis airflow is present (or in an open-air test bench, like some of the reviews), same for any higher end GPU. Otherwise it's going to throttle like hell.
 
DejaWiz said:
1. At $650...what is it a solution for?

2. The power draw and heat output of the Nano pretty much requires a beefy power supply and chassis with ample airflow...again, what solution is it for?

3. False. There are plenty of mITX and uATX MoBos on the market that are tailored for OC'ing.

4. It's only effective when adequate chassis airflow is present (or in an open-air test bench, like some of the reviews), same for any higher end GPU. Otherwise it's going to throttle like hell.
Click to expand...

1. There is a big difference between a case that can fit a 12" card and one that can only fit a 7" card. If you are OK with the 14" length needed then the 980Ti or FuryX maybe the better choice. Personal choice what is better, what you think is better, well some folks could care less.

2. I would say less than 500w, 175w Nano + 95w cpu + 25w odds and ends = 295w, hell even a 400w power supply should be plenty.

3. Get those motherboards in a very tight case and see what happens. I burnt up two motherboards in a HPTC mITXcase that used half-height cards only, ITX power supply. Minor OCing (experimenting, CPU temps OK but parts of the motherboard obviously overheated) Air flow really changes a lot in very small cases. Ended up getting a case that can fit full height half length cards a.k.a GTX 750Ti (which when it came out) was the Nano at that form factor. I should take a picture of my current case next to a full size card - maybe you would understand.

4. Well until HardOCP tests this out since they seem to be the only one that will stick the Nano in a small case we will see. Currently I don't see many cases where the Nano would be most useful. Cases that fit bigger cards - one can use the bigger cards (just realize it may restrict airflow, make it harder to assembly etc. but could be cheaper and yet more powerful). Really for most folks the bigger case would not be an issue but not all folks think the same.
 
thedocta45 said:
the RAIJINTEK is 170mm
LIAN LI PC-TU100B is 190mm
and
LIAN LI PC-Q03B is 180mm

170mm is 6.7 inches
180mm is 7.1 inches
190mm is 7.5 inches
10mm is about .4 inches

You can fit a Fury X in most 190mm cases.
Click to expand...

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

Decided to run some benchmarks to test out temps. Very disappointing.

CPU Load: 80 C
GPU Load: 80 C

It wasn't as if the fan profiles were on silent either - I could easily hear the fans even though there were only 3 fans and I could see that the PSU fan was off as it wasn't drawing that much power (around 130W measured at the wall).

My i5-4570 with the same cooler on stock ran at 50-60 C load whilst the GPU ran at 55 C load in an ATX case with only an intake and exhaust (NZXT S340) without the fans spinning up at all.

I might try adding the fan back into the case as an exhaust but I can't imagine it helping much. What this case needs are more intake holes - there are simply not enough of them and so the case can't get any fresh air. I think if there were some holes in front of the windowed panel and on the top, the components would be able to breathe and the load temps would probably be below 60 C without the fans spinning up. Right now, if I forced the fans to stay at their silent profile, I can imagine the machine would be throttling or restarting.

It's a shame as the case is nice, the form factor is nice, and the build quality is nice. But I guess it was form over function here and due to that, I can't recommend this case as it has trouble keeping low powered components cool.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
noko said:
1. There is a big difference between a case that can fit a 12" card and one that can only fit a 7" card. If you are OK with the 14" length needed then the 980Ti or FuryX maybe the better choice. Personal choice what is better, what you think is better, well some folks could care less.

2. I would say less than 500w, 175w Nano + 95w cpu + 25w odds and ends = 295w, hell even a 400w power supply should be plenty.

3. Get those motherboards in a very tight case and see what happens. I burnt up two motherboards in a HPTC mITXcase that used half-height cards only, ITX power supply. Minor OCing (experimenting, CPU temps OK but parts of the motherboard obviously overheated) Air flow really changes a lot in very small cases. Ended up getting a case that can fit full height half length cards a.k.a GTX 750Ti (which when it came out) was the Nano at that form factor. I should take a picture of my current case next to a full size card - maybe you would understand.

4. Well until HardOCP tests this out since they seem to be the only one that will stick the Nano in a small case we will see. Currently I don't see many cases where the Nano would be most useful. Cases that fit bigger cards - one can use the bigger cards (just realize it may restrict airflow, make it harder to assembly etc. but could be cheaper and yet more powerful). Really for most folks the bigger case would not be an issue but not all folks think the same.
Click to expand...

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 fan 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 fan 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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top