# AMD Radeon R9 Nano Coming Sooner Than You Think?



## btarunr (Aug 4, 2015)

AMD's upcoming disruptive performance-segment graphics card, the Radeon R9 Nano, could be arriving sooner than its late-Summer expected launch. One of AMD's promotional heads Anthony "Elmy" Lackey posted two pictures of the card on his Flickr page, which reiterates just how compact the thing is. AMD earlier announced that the R9 Nano will be faster than the Radeon R9 290X, with typical board power well under 190W, making it an exciting product to look forward to. The R9 Nano will be based on the same "Fiji" silicon, which powers the R9 Fury X and R9 Fury. AMD could make a major announcement related to this product very soon, given how Elmy promised to release a few details next week.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## kiddagoat (Aug 4, 2015)

That is a fairly compact card..... geeze.....


----------



## 64K (Aug 4, 2015)

This is a card that will make AMD some cash hopefully. Dependent on price and performance. The Fury X and Fury are fun to read about but most people aren't going to spend the money to get one. It's the midrange cards like the Nano and entry level cards that most will be buying.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 4, 2015)

so sexy, I must have it!!!


----------



## Disparia (Aug 4, 2015)

Nope! Because I wasn't thinking of a date before.

For those of us looking for smallish cards it'll be hard to beat. I held off getting a GTX 960 when AMD first announced it; glad to hear it's coming 'soon'.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2015)

So will it beat a 390X?


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 4, 2015)

A day late and a dollar short.  I probably would have bought one had they released it in July with Fury.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 4, 2015)

Why am I feeling like this is going to fall somewhere between a 380 and 390? I've seen nothing but just the look of the card isn't giving me the full performance vibe. Maybe it's nothing. I dig the size of the card though. I still think AMD has some work to do before HBM gets utilized properly so I don't regret not waiting.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So will it beat a 390X?


AMD claimed "significantly faster then a 290x" in their announcement conference but don't see how that card will keep full performance without throttling.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 4, 2015)

That's an unfortunate possibility.   I really hope one fan is enough to keep it running at full throttle.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 4, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So will it beat a 390X?


It said it would beat a 290x... they are the same exact card sans more memory...

Yes.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 4, 2015)

64K said:


> This is a card that will make AMD some cash hopefully. Dependent on price and performance.


The 390X uses a 438mm² GPU and some relatively inexpensive 6Gbps GDDR5, the Fury Nano will use a 596mm² GPU and a pricey HBM and interposer implementation. I doubt AMD will make much (if any) cash in relation to their conventional GDDR5-based cards.

Technically, you could make a revenue killing by selling $10 notes for $5 each, but your bottom line tells a different story.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 4, 2015)

Holy cow, it looks smaller than the Asus "ITX" cards.
Kind of want, just for the size and power envelope.


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 4, 2015)

Even with TDP well under 190W, that single fan will be spinning very fast ... cooling on this little fellow might just be barely good enough, and this is me hoping I'm wrong.


----------



## NC37 (Aug 4, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Why am I feeling like this is going to fall somewhere between a 380 and 390? I've seen nothing but just the look of the card isn't giving me the full performance vibe. Maybe it's nothing. I dig the size of the card though. I still think AMD has some work to do before HBM gets utilized properly so I don't regret not waiting.



Because it likely will be. This card is very likely the reason why there is no 380X. Simply because the performance is likely on par with what the 380X was going to deliver.


----------



## Ralfies (Aug 4, 2015)

I have that pen at work. It sucks. Uni-ball vision elite is where it's at. 

The card is adorable.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 4, 2015)

NC37 said:


> Because it likely will be. This card is very likely the reason why there is no 380X. Simply because the performance is likely on par with what the 380X was going to deliver.



-.-  Them some good drugs...


----------



## Joss (Aug 4, 2015)

Why am I not excited?
oh... it must have to do with all those previous disappointments.

Let me go and watch some proper prOn


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 4, 2015)

Regrettably,  I'd think AMD can't price it much less than $450.  While performance might be par/better than the 390, perhaps coming in close to the 390X/980 at times.  The problem is it a niche product to take some "ITX Crown", although little solace in such a win.  Against a Gigabyte 970 ITX, it might have 7-10% lead @1440p, but with the Gigabyte 970 ITX right now is $290 and the Metal Gear Solid V... It's not going to show great with like 60% higher price.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 4, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Regrettably,  I'd think AMD can't price it much less than $450.  While performance might be par/better than the 390, perhaps coming in close to the 390X/980 at times.  The problem is it a niche product to take some "ITX Crown", although little solace in such a win.  Against a Gigabyte 970 ITX, it might have 7-10% lead @1440p, but with the Gigabyte 970 ITX right now is $290 and the Metal Gear Solid V... It's not going to show great with like 60% higher price.



290x and 390x are on par performance wise... to be significantly faster than a 290x puts it above the 390x...

at $450 faster and less power than a 390x wouldn't be bad.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 4, 2015)

Patriot said:


> -.-  Them some good drugs...


It might not be that far from reality. The difference between the Fury and the 390X isn't that pronounced, and I suspect the 15-20% clock reduction will impact Fiji somewhat more than the 12.5% reduction in shader count. It might be more noticeable with the lower tier cards being of reference design/speed, but AIB custom cards with higher clocks at, or near, reference cards (if they can be found) pricing makes that comparison more academic in nature.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 4, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> It might not be that far from reality. The difference between the Fury and the 390X isn't that pronounced, and I suspect the 15-20% clock reduction will impact Fiji somewhat more than the 12.5% reduction in shader count. It might be more noticeable with the lower tier cards being of reference design/speed, but AIB custom cards with higher clocks at, or near, reference cards (if they can be found) pricing makes that comparison more academic in nature.



The ROPS can't feed the high SP count at low res on fury.   That gap becomes significant at 4k, tesselation, and eyefinity.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Aug 4, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> The 390X uses a 438mm² GPU and some relatively inexpensive 6Gbps GDDR5, the Fury Nano will use a 596mm² GPU and a pricey HBM and interposer implementation. I doubt AMD will make much (if any) cash in relation to their conventional GDDR5-based cards.
> 
> Technically, you could make a revenue killing by selling $10 notes for $5 each, but your bottom line tells a different story.



Except that the Fury Nano is based on harvested Fiji chips, which is why they're releasing a midrange card based on a high end chip.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 4, 2015)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> Except that the Fury Nano is based on harvested Fiji chips, which is why they're releasing a midrange card based on a high end chip.



And why the hell not .


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Aug 4, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> It might not be that far from reality. The difference between the Fury and the 390X isn't that pronounced, and I suspect the 15-20% clock reduction will impact Fiji somewhat more than the 12.5% reduction in shader count. It might be more noticeable with the lower tier cards being of reference design/speed, but AIB custom cards with higher clocks at, or near, reference cards (if they can be found) pricing makes that comparison more academic in nature.



Depends on the game: AMD's DX11 drivers aren't as efficient batch creation and validation wise compared to Nvidia's, especially when the DX runtime tries to manage multiple concurrent threads. If you look at Bioshock Infinite for example, the Fury is around 20% faster than the 390x, which is in line with the difference in FPU count between the two chips.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 4, 2015)

Patriot said:


> 290x and 390x are on par performance wise... to be significantly faster than a 290x puts it above the 390x...
> 
> at $450 faster and less power than a 390x wouldn't be bad.


I'd ask you check here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/30.html


----------



## Basard (Aug 4, 2015)

Ralfies said:


> I have that pen at work. It sucks. Uni-ball vision elite is where it's at.



Hell yeah it sucks, stupid plastic clips always break on em.... tube comes apart if you click it too hard....  That's why I just bought my own pen.


----------



## Sihastru (Aug 4, 2015)

I was wondering when AMD will restart the hype machine. Prepare to be disappointed... thoroughly.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 4, 2015)

Sooner than you think? I got tired of waiting for new R9-300 cards and just bought GTX 980. Excellent job AMD.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 5, 2015)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> Except that the Fury Nano is based on harvested Fiji chips, which is why they're releasing a midrange card based on a high end chip.


I was under the impression that the Nano was to use the full Fiji die - just downclocked by ~ 15%. Something that was widely reported when the Fury X launched as far as core count is concerned.

If you're expecting the Nano to be both a salvage part in line with the non-X Fury *and* downclocked to fit into the sub-190W usage envelope ( which would seem a given since the salvage part 1000MHz Fury pulls 226W according to the same review you pulled the chart from) I'd suggest the difference between the 390X and the Nano will be considerably less than 20%.

Unless you play a selection of games based solely upon highlighting the difference between Fiji and Hawaii ( probably an unrealistic usage scenario), the actual difference from the same review you posted is 13% at 4K res....and that doesn't take into account AIB vendor 390X's with better clocking potential - something, so far, that scales better than the Fury line.


----------



## Mistral (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm pretty much set on getting on of these, provided the acoustics are good. Even if performance turns out to be really close to 290X level, at 190W and that footprint it's a winner.

Again, in the end the noise level will make it or break it.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Aug 5, 2015)

TFW the card's plugged into an Intel board there


Spoiler


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 5, 2015)

Based on what information we have thus far, its likely to fall in line around the 390 range.  We have yet to see an R9 380X which could hint that there may not be one or that the Nano will be in that range but I doubt its going to be as powerful as a 290X.  That is all the speculation I can make given what we have thus far unless AMD intends to completely butcher the R9 390X and 390 which then would beg the question why the 390X is not just moved to the 390 and so on down the line because it would make more sense if the Nano is going to be on par yet use significantly less voltage and then name it the 390X Nano or similar (this is all just my rambling based on the information at hand).


----------



## AsRock (Aug 5, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Sooner than you think? I got tired of waiting for new R9-300 cards and just bought GTX 980. Excellent job AMD.



Aint it funny, that the world don't evolve around you.


----------



## EpicShweetness (Aug 5, 2015)

Judging by the cards size and "Fiji" consumption, I think the hype train that AMD has going is going to become a fail train, but not by much. Don't get me wrong I think what we have on hand here is.....
1.) Fiji cut in half, or....
2.) Fiji with severely low clocks, simply because of thermal throttle.

In either way I suspect this card to show the GTX 960 a thing or 2, it might be the reason we see a "960ti"
We'll see I might be completely wrong, and this thing will be a 290 (or more) in a 6 inch form, which would be awesome!


----------



## lastcalaveras (Aug 5, 2015)

that's not how to write the date in australia


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

I think this card will smoke the 960...it's going to be 970 range or better.

At 2560x1440 there is a 17% gap between the fury and 970... this is where I feel the nano will land. 
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/31.html


----------



## Fluffmeister (Aug 5, 2015)

Looking around most stores seem to still be waiting for Fury / Fury X to launch.

Bring on the reviews.


----------



## nem (Aug 5, 2015)

Really looks impresive i can wait to know more about *Nano*


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

No external power?

Either this is nothing more than a non-working mockup, which might as well be made with wood screws, or the power sticks out the back effectively negating the benefit of the small form factor.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> No external power?
> 
> Either this is nothing more than a non-working mockup, which might as well be made with wood screws, or the power sticks out the back effectively negating the benefit of the small form factor.


it has one, its mounted on back side of the PCB instead of facing outward. its either 2x6pin or 1x8pin


----------



## Basard (Aug 5, 2015)

I can't wait to see Sapphire's version.... U know, the one with a foot of heat sink hanging off the backside. bua hahaha


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> it has one, its mounted on back side of the PCB instead of facing outward. its either 2x6pin or 1x8pin



So there really isn't any point to this small form factor then...



EarthDog said:


> It said it would beat a 290x... they are the same exact card sans more memory...
> 
> Yes.



Um, no they aren't.  The 390x has much higher clock speeds.  If the Nano was faster than a 390x they would have said it was.  They picked the 290x because it can beat a 290x but not a 390x.

I'm guess GTX970 level of performance.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

Come on newtekie... I was talking underlying architecture bub! Clockspeeds and the amount of ram do not make it a different card! It's the same thing under the hood! 

And remember there were plenty of highly overclocked 290x cards out there that go toe to toe with the 390x.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 5, 2015)

AMD said nothing about the Nano being faster than the 390x or 290x


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So will it beat a 390X?


If it beats the 290X, that puts it on par with the 390X.
The latter has faster clocks and more memory only.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390X-vs-Radeon-R9-290X


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> it has one, its mounted on back side of the PCB instead of facing outward. its either 2x6pin or 1x8pin


By backside you mean internal under the plastic cover on the end?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

Sempron Guy said:


> AMD said nothing about the Nano being faster than the 390x or 290x


Look at the asterisk in the corner.

290X consumes 250W on average:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728-4.html

Nano is expected to be about 175W on average or 30% less.

I don't think 390X was out before June 16 so I think they used 290X because it was a known quantity.  It'll be interesting to see where Nano lands relative to 390X.


----------



## gaximodo (Aug 5, 2015)

you know when AMD says significant it means up to 3%, sometimes -5%


----------



## arbiter (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> So there really isn't any point to this small form factor then...


Can't pull 190watts from PCI-e


newtekie1 said:


> Um, no they aren't. The 390x has much higher clock speeds. If the Nano was faster than a 390x they would have said it was. They picked the 290x because it can beat a 290x but not a 390x.


Um you do know that a 390x is just an overclocked rebranded 290x with a small gpu OC and memory?


Sempron Guy said:


> AMD said nothing about the Nano being faster than the 390x or 290x


they made the claim it was during the fury announcement.








^ there is the claim AMD made that it was. She makes the claim it does at the 1:50 mark.... They claimed it was faster then 290x, significantly faster



gaximodo said:


> you know when AMD says significant it means up to 3%, sometimes -5%


Just like 20% faster performance in that video turned in to about 10% slower in a lot of games.


----------



## xvi (Aug 5, 2015)

Basard said:


> Hell yeah it sucks, stupid plastic clips always break on em.... tube comes apart if you click it too hard....  That's why I just bought my own pen.


Can confirm, plastic clip always breaks.

Also, woo nano, woo early, woo waiting for benchmarks as per usual.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 5, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Aint it funny, that the world don't evolve around you.



Yeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Can't pull 190watts from PCI-e


75 through the PCI-e, and 100 through the 8 pin connector, leaves plenty of headroom for more power.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

Fury X isn't clipped, Fury is, supposedly Nano isn't.   So if Nano is an underclocked Fury X and Fury X draws 250w versus Nano's 175w and we assume power scales linearly with clockspeed, crunch a few numbers and Nano comes to 735 MHz of Fury X's 1050 MHz...a 30% reduction.  Can get numbers to compare here.  AMD would use a best-case-scenario for comparing to older models which likely means 4K and we have to exclude Project Cars because that's an anomaly so Fury X is 21% faster than 390X and 29% faster than 290X.  29% is damn close to 30% and a far cry from 21%.  I think it's pretty safe to assume it will land between 290X and 390X.  You'd need a Fury to best the 390X.

If the Nano's average power draw is closer to 190w (calculated previously based on Fury X numbers), that goes in favor of Nano in terms of performance but still not enough to beat 390X.

Assuming all of the above is accurate, that should mean Nano will be priced similar to 390X or a bit under ($400ish USD).

For the green team, that puts Nano at about GTX 980 at 4K and about GTX 970 at FHD...not bad for a six inch card.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 5, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> 75 through the PCI-e, and 100 through the 8 pin connector, leaves plenty of headroom for more power.


its 150 for 8pin.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

Yeah, assume AMD's 175w figure is just an average when gaming.  Nano can draw a total of 225w compared to Fury/Fury X at 375w.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> its 150 for 8pin.


I was assuming 175w average, not what the 8 pin is capable of.


----------



## SNM (Aug 5, 2015)

Seems, it is almost half in the size than my MSI R9 270X 2 GB.... :-D let's see what it have in performance.....compared to other biggies around.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 5, 2015)

SNM said:


> Seems, it is almost half in the size than my MSI R9 270X 2 GB.... :-D let's see what it have in performance.....compared to other biggies around.


I think really the bigger question isn't performance more as to temps it will run and if that little cooler on it can do the job.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2015)

Found some more pictures here, interesting details on the back.
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=892&pgno=2


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 5, 2015)

i want, i want i want
i hope the price aint gonna hang me dry


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

arbiter said:


> Can't pull 190watts from PCI-e


Sure you can... it is just out of spec. 150W is the SPEC for an 8 pin from PCIe SIG. 

Think about it... how do LN2 people get away with bios and voltage mods that go well past 375W (2 8pin + PCIe slot)?


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 5, 2015)

I really strongly feel that this product will fall between a 380 and 390, if Fiji is really just based off Tonga, wouldn't it make sense to see a 380-like card in Fury (HBM) form?


----------



## AsRock (Aug 5, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...




I am not waiting, 28nm is dead to me has been for a few years now then there is the point were the 290X still doing what i need of it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I really strongly feel that this product will fall between a 380 and 390, if Fiji is really just based off Tonga, wouldn't it make sense to see a 380-like card in Fury (HBM) form?


I think it will almost exactly match 390 in performance but it will be a bit more in terms of price.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, it doesn't, that's why I got tired of endlessly waiting for their stupid graphic cards and bought the GTX. Like so many other people who did the same after waiting for almost one year just to get bunch of stupid rebrands with new gen cards nowhere to be seen. I'd call that VERY poor business execution on the AMD part and something that has nothing to do with world revolving around me... But hey, enjoy your waiting...



Same here, I was on board for a Fury or Fury x.  Ended up with a 980.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Come on newtekie... I was talking underlying architecture bub! Clockspeeds and the amount of ram do not make it a different card! It's the same thing under the hood!
> 
> And remember there were plenty of highly overclocked 290x cards out there that go toe to toe with the 390x.



They do make a difference in _performance, _which is what we are talking about here.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure AMD would have said it outperforms a 390x if it actually did.  The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance.


----------



## Slizzo (Aug 5, 2015)

Better than 290X in that form factor would be amazing. Here's hoping it's potential is realized.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

They PERFORM different, sure. But its the same damn card with different clocks and memory. I didn't take your opposition to my "exact same card" statement to mean performance or that performance/clockspeeds suddenly changes its name... Akin to a Mustang, Mustang GT, Cobra, SHelby, Boss... they are all still mustangs right? Just difference performance. 
(ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)



newtekie1 said:


> Like I said, I'm pretty sure AMD would have said it outperforms a 390x if it actually did. The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance.


Agreed.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> (ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)



Actually, not really that bad of a comparison.  With the exception of the base Mustang and possibly some of the higher higher Shelbies, like the 500, they all used the same 4.6L engine.  They just had some slightly different components akin to clocks and memory.  With the newer model Mustangs, there was the inclusion of the 5.0L but it shares many of the same components as teh 4.6L engine.

But, in many instances there is not much separating the 290X and 390X.  So unless the Nano can come in priced less than the 390X it is going to be a hard sell.  I originally believed that Nano to be coming in at around $450US.  That can't happen for this card to sell.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> They PERFORM different, sure. But its the same damn card with different clocks and memory. I didn't take your opposition to my "exact same card" statement to mean performance or that performance/clockspeeds suddenly changes its name... Akin to a Mustang, Mustang GT, Cobra, SHelby, Boss... they are all still mustangs right? Just difference performance.
> (ok, piss poor example on the cards considering the engine is different, LOL, but I think you got my point)



Your answer to the question "will it outperform a 390x" was "yes, because it is the same card as the 290x".  That is an incorrect answer.  They might be the same card, but they perform differently, the 390x is over 10% faster than the 290x.  The question asked was about performance, simply answering "they are the same card" is wrong.



Slizzo said:


> Better than 290X in that form factor would be amazing. Here's hoping it's potential is realized.



Yeah, nVidia did it almost a year ago and I didn't see much fanfare about it back than...


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, nVidia did it almost a year ago and I didn't see much fanfare about it back than...


Well that was the vendors like Asus and Gigabyte and not NVidia.  Its a reference card coming in that small which makes it appealing to some.



arbiter said:


> I think really the bigger question isn't performance more as to temps it will run and if that little cooler on it can do the job.


Dude enough with the temp argument, I highly doubt they would put that cooler on the card if it could not handle it (INB4 we reference 290X, the cooler could handle it just was not as appealing as some liked).  When the card comes out we can all see how the temps are and make judgments there.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

Holy splitting fookn hairs..... its the same card with a speed increase... I didn't call a factory overclocked 290x a 290.5x did I? It still beats one of those right (Yes)? So yeah, it beats a 290x IN ANY FORM I would imagine.

Come on new........ shake it off!  LOL 

EDIT: After shaking it off myself, LOL, I need to make a correction. I think the Nano will (barely) beat a 390x. For some reason, I forgot about FuryX/Fury. I think the Nano will beat a 'reference' 390X, but still be short of the Fury.

The reason why they didn't say it would beat a 390x is because they are afraid to mention the "R" word (rebrand) and marketing. Otherwise, you have seen the reviews, there isn't a difference outside of those clockspeed increases which amount to a few % increase. I would be shocked if the Nano manages to slide in the tiny gap between the 390x and 290x. i dont think it will beat it by much, particularly at 1920x1080 (will be better at 2560x1440) and lower simply because of how the HBM architecture is scaling down compared to other non HBM/Fiji cards.

Hopefully that clarifies things.


----------



## Carl Rivest (Aug 5, 2015)

At the same clock speed, 290x and 390x are almost on par. 
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1434612549l1GBQzJE5q_9_3.gif


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

Wait...so because a 390x and 290x are not the same cards because one is 10% faster, that means:


an overclocked 390x really is a 490x because it is about 10% faster
an overclocked 290x is really a 390x because they have about the same performance
an overclocked 290x 8GB cards is ???
OMG I am so confused now....


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

My point exactly Carl. Hence why I feel the Nano, if they said it would beat a 290x, will also beat a 390x or at worst, tie it since they are factory overclocked. It all depends on what they based 'significant' performance increase off of when AMD said that... so who knows.

But since there is a pretty beefy gap (2560x1440) between the 290x/390x and FuryX, that is where I see it ending up. There is a 21% gap between the 290x and Fury and a 13% gap between the 390x and Fury... Right THERE is where it fits in. 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html



moproblems99 said:


> Wait...so because a 390x and 290x are not the same cards because one is 10% faster, that means:
> 
> 
> an overclocked 390x really is a 490x because it is about 10% faster
> ...


LOLOLOLOL!


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't think 390X was out before June 16 so I think they used 290X because it was a known quantity. It'll be interesting to see where Nano lands relative to 390X.


 


newtekie1 said:


> The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance


 
I'd concur with FordGT90Concept, AMD was not going to compare a next-generation card to a card that they had yet released (390/390X) so all they could/would compare it to was a 290X. 

That said, I've been search for the "direct quote" of AMD saying Nano is "significantly faster”, and I'm not finding multiple confirmations or the transcripts of E3 2015 where it is attributed?  Every time I search I find such claims come back to either:

Brad Chacos Senior Editor, PCWorld; CEO Lisa Su _has_ said that the six-inch card will offer “significantly more performance than the Radeon R9 290X,”
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2949...ul-radeon-r9-nano-is-launching-in-august.html

Or, Ryan Shrout at PCPerspective; On stage at the AMD E3 2015 press conference, AMD's CEO Lisa Su announced the Radeon R9 Nano, a 6-in PCB small form factor graphics card that will feature "2x the performance per watt of the R9 290X" as well as "significantly" more performance than the R9 290X.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Announces-Radeon-R9-Nano-6-Graphics-Card

I find it odd that Ryan used the word "significantly" in his passage he "air-quotes" after the information we've known AMD offered.  While neither are corresponding quotes?  

All I really find actually stated/printed is, "AMD states that *the card is faster* than the R9 290X and has 2x the performance per watt of the R9 290X."

I would think there would be transcripts or video of that, I'd like to see how that factully transpired... anyone?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> hat said, I've been search for the "direct quote" of AMD saying Nano is "significantly faster”, and I'm not finding multiple confirmations of the transcripts of E3 2015 where tis is attributed to? Every time I search I find such claims come back to either:


Dude posted the video.. 1:50s in she says EXACTLY that...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...ner-than-you-think.214926/page-2#post-3325796


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

Significantly faster means 20% - 30% to me.  Especially when we are comparing cards two years apart.  I don't see the difference being that great except maybe at 4k which would still technically make her correct.  But I don't see a snowballs chance in hell of this being 20% faster or more across the board.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

moproblems99 said:


> Wait...so because a 390x and 290x are not the same cards because one is 10% faster, that means:
> 
> 
> an overclocked 390x really is a 490x because it is about 10% faster
> ...



Performance wise, in the context of the original question, they are in fact not the same card.  And as far as AMD is concerned they are not the same card.  They even went as far to rename the internal codename for the GPU, and then hounding W1z to change it in GPU-Z.

So, the point still stands, if the Nano was faster than the 390x, they would have said so.  They didn't, so it is pretty safe to assume the Nano isn't faster than the 390x and will fall somewhere between the 290x and 390x.



EarthDog said:


> I think the Nano will beat a 'reference' 390X, but still be short of the Fury.



With AMD's PR team, if that was the case they would have said so.  They overstate what their products are capable of as it is, so they wouldn't miss an opportunity like that.



GhostRyder said:


> Well that was the vendors like Asus and Gigabyte and not NVidia. Its a reference card coming in that small which makes it appealing to some.



The nVidia reference PCB was just as small.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> So, the point still stands, if the Nano was faster than the 390x, they would have said so.  They didn't, so it is pretty safe to assume the Nano isn't faster than the 390x and will fall somewhere between the 290x and 390x.



Let me ask you something.  If you were trying to sell 390Xs that aren't even released, would you tell someone that you also had something 1/3 size, twice as power efficient, and faster?*

Probably not.  Base it off something that is 2 years old, and your new "different" card might still sell.

*All ethical considerations aside.

EDIT:

Also it is asinine to consider the 390X to be a different card than the 290X on grounds other than the 8GB memory, and even that was available on the 290X.  AMD has gone through such great lengths to give the appearance of a different card because they want to sell them.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

moproblems99 said:


> Let me ask you something.  If you were trying to sell 390Xs that aren't even released, would you tell someone that you also had something 1/3 size, twice as power efficient, and faster?*
> 
> Probably not.  Base it off something that is 2 years old, and your new "different" card might still sell.
> 
> *All ethical considerations aside.



Not an issue, all of that applies to the Fury and Fury-X too.  If they had a card that beat the 390x it would cost more too, so saying it was better than a 390x wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> So, the point still stands, if the Nano was faster than the 390x, they would have said so..


LOL, no they wouldn;t... think about it...see moprobs post above...think about it. The 390x MSRP is $429 while the Fury is $550. THere is plenty of room for a card there, no? So Pricing has nothing to do with it... moprobs post stands as far as I am concerned... Its simply the fact that they refuse to say rebrand, so they wouldn't want to step on its toes...



newtekie1 said:


> With AMD's PR team, if that was the case they would have said so. They overstate what their products are capable of as it is, so they wouldn't miss an opportunity like that.


Disagree.. see moprobs post... they don't want to kill 390x sales... I have to imagine it will come in around $450-$475 MSRP depending on where it actually lands performance wise. Again, I would be FLOORED if it was between the 290x and 390x. 



> They didn't, so it is pretty safe to assume the Nano isn't faster than the 390x and will fall somewhere between the 290x and 390x


I guess time will tell, but thinking critically about it, and knowing what a marketing machine AMD is, I have to agree with moprobs logic. I don't find 10% to be 'significantly' faster (maybe AMD does). And there is no way in hell they would break out a card that trumps their 'new' 390x they talked about minutes earlier...




newtekie1 said:


> They even went as far to rename the internal codename for the GPU, and then hounding W1z to change it in GPU-Z.


That right there doesn't tell you its the same card with more ram and clockspeeds?


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Not an issue, all of that applies to the Fury and Fury-X too.  If they had a card that beat the 390x it would cost more too, so saying it was better than a 390x wouldn't be an issue.



That sounded better typing it out than reading it.  +1 to you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> That right there doesn't tell you its the same card with more ram and clockspeeds?



Again, I never argued it wasn't the same card.  I said it wasn't the same _*PERFORMANCE*_. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding that.

They are not the same exact card, the clock speeds have changed, and so has the performance.

When talking about a statement in reference to performance, that is all that matters.

By your logic, the i7-4765T is the exact same processor as the i7-4790.  So since the i7-4785T outperforms the i7-4765T, then it must outperform the i7-4790.  They are the exact same processor after all.  Oh wait, clock speeds make a difference...


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

I suppose, as I said earlier, it boils down to what the AMD lady said... "SIGNIFICANTLY beats the 290x". We can run in circles all day trying to pin down something quantitative in regards to what significantly is... and we can do the same trying to figure out if she meant reference 290x or an overclocked 290x with 8GB (390x or TriX 8GB LOL!). Assuming the 290x was lumped together with all of them and not just reference, you can see why I feel my performance point on the Nano is logical, versus what I feel yours is a leap of faith.

Oh well... time will tell where this badboy will land.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> SIGNIFICANTLY beats the 290x



Yeah, and remember, the Fury-X "significantly beats the 980Ti" too...


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

Did they actually say that? (being serious, I don't recall that). I recall them saying it was the fastest single graphics card out... LOL


----------



## 64K (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Did they actually say that? (being serious, I don't recall that). I recall them saying it was the fastest single graphics card out... LOL



Well, AMD did "leak" some benches that showed Fury X to be faster in every game tested against the Titan X at 4k.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

ANd they were in those AMD games at least, right? LOL!


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Dude posted the video.. 1:50s in she says EXACTLY that...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...ner-than-you-think.214926/page-2#post-3325796


Thank you, I apologize I scrolled over that post from *arbiter *(great work).

I knew it must be out there, although not until *arbiter* had I found someone who points it factually transpiring.  Heck I've listen to that video when it came out and I never noticed it as projecting the encumbrance its' created.  The use of the word "significantly" is a weird, as it hard to quantify, like "noisy". The PR folk that wrote or prepped her, did wrong and should've refrained from that in the talking points (heck she appears to be using a promonter) and caution the use of such non-decisive words, for something that can and would be measured.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

moproblems99 said:


> Significantly faster means 20% - 30% to me.  Especially when we are comparing cards two years apart.  I don't see the difference being that great except maybe at 4k which would still technically make her correct.  But I don't see a snowballs chance in hell of this being 20% faster or more across the board.


Clock for clock Nano would be 30% faster than 290X but Nano could be missing 30% of its clocks.  It really boils down to what the stock clockspeed is.  My guess is 750 MHz which translates to faster than 290X at low resolution and "significantly faster" at high resolution.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Clock for clock Nano would be 30% faster than 290X but Nano could be missing 30% of its clocks.  It really boils down to what the stock clockspeed is.  My guess is 750 MHz which translates to faster than 290X at low resolution and "significantly" faster at high resolution.



My scientific number is (290X_Perfomance * 2) * (Nano_POWER/290_POWER).  That is what they claim with 2 x Perf/Watt of 290X and they are targeting like 170 or 190 watts.  If I wasn't lazy and working I would go pull some numbers from charts and see what we have.

All kidding aside, its a shame they couldn't have pushed all these out with the rest of the rebrands, I mean different cards.  They probably would have sold a lot more of them.  I would have bought one.


----------



## 64K (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> ANd they were in those AMD games at least, right? LOL!



Yeah, there was some cherry picking. I was wrong about the Titan X though. This was "leaked" slides showing Fury X to be faster than 980 Ti at 4K before Fury X came out

http://videocardz.com/56711/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-official-benchmarks-leaked

It was a part of the Fury X hype train leading up to the release and caused a few people to be disappointed when finally reviewed at the Fury X performance and overclocking.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 5, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I really strongly feel that this product will fall between a 380 and 390, if Fiji is really just based off Tonga, wouldn't it make sense to see a 380-like card in Fury (HBM) form?










^skip to 1:50 mark of the video, AMD's president and CEO claimed it would be then 290x so it wouldn't fall between them when its supposed to be faster.


newtekie1 said:


> They do make a difference in _performance, _which is what we are talking about here.
> Like I said, I'm pretty sure AMD would have said it outperforms a 390x if it actually did.  The fact that they said it outperforms a 290x and not a 390x gives us a great hint that the Nano will fall between the 290x and 390x in performance.


Problem with that between 290x and 390x is only 10% window at most so being between them tight margin to wall which wouldn't mean its "significantly more performance" wouldn't be true.



Casecutter said:


> I'd concur with FordGT90Concept, AMD was not going to compare a next-generation card to a card that they had yet released (390/390X) so all they could/would compare it to was a 290X.
> That said, I've been search for the "direct quote" of AMD saying Nano is "significantly faster”, and I'm not finding multiple confirmations or the transcripts of E3 2015 where it is attributed? Every time I search I find such claims come back to either:


yea they wouldn't say 390x since well it wasn't out yet. everyone knew what 390x really is at this point so no reason to keep that board floating anymore.



64K said:


> Yeah, there was some cherry picking. I was wrong about the Titan X though. This was "leaked" slides showing Fury X to be faster than 980 Ti at 4K before Fury X came out
> 
> http://videocardz.com/56711/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-official-benchmarks-leaked
> 
> It was a part of the Fury X hype train leading up to the release and caused a few people to be disappointed when finally reviewed at the Fury X performance and overclocking.



Techreports on their podcast that week following the PR thing, they broke down the settings in question. AMD what they did was turn off anything that wasn't using the shaders on the card like AF which everyone pretty runs 16x or least 8x in most cases. Same for other effects if it wasn't something can use their 4096 shaders to do it got turned off hence where numbers came from. Also hence when independent reviews tested the card they had that stuff turned on which is more closer to what real work players would use it was slower.
That leaked slide end up being one AMD used in their release conf.
edit:








He starts at 41:00 mark but you can skip to around 41:40 where he really dives in to it all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Did they actually say that? (being serious, I don't recall that). I recall them saying it was the fastest single graphics card out... LOL



Not exactly in those words.  You are right, they said the Fury-X was the fastest GPU in the world, besting the Titan-X and 980Ti.  And we know it isn't true, so the PR Team's sense of performance has proven to be very skewed.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 6, 2015)

It was in their testing...


----------



## haswrong (Aug 7, 2015)

kiddagoat said:


> That is a fairly compact card..... geeze.....


almost looks like they had to enlarge the card to not let the PCI-E connector stick out!


----------



## newconroer (Aug 8, 2015)

Mistral said:


> I'm pretty much set on getting on of these, provided the acoustics are good. Even if performance turns out to be really close to 290X level, at 190W and that footprint it's a winner.
> 
> Again, in the end the noise level will make it or break it.



A lot of cards have a fan(s) set to ridiculously low RPMs in their BIOS. Manufacturers /vendors do this to achieve a 'out of the box' quiet and low dB rating for reviews. However anyone who has used a GPU knows that if you want the card to not melt itself, that you change the default fan control.
Given that a lot of GPUs use 75-95mm fans, you end up with a jet fighter inside your case.

If the low power usage results in good temperatures, then maybe they can utilize a low fan RPM.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 8, 2015)

It's all about the watts.  Your typical 2011 CPU is 140w.  This card will easily exceed that.  Compare the HSF on a Nano to what you'd put on your average 140w CPU.  It is likely inadequate so either the fan has to run very fast or the card has to undervolt/underclock itself.


----------



## haswrong (Aug 8, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's all about the watts.  Your typical 2011 CPU is 140w.  This card will easily exceed that.  Compare the HSF on a Nano to what you'd put on your average 140w CPU.  It is likely inadequate so either the fan has to run very fast or the card has to undervolt/underclock itself.


isnt the heat shared a bit between the gpu and vrm?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 8, 2015)

Yeah but with Fiji, that's a lot of heat in a very compact area.  The heat being spread out more is an advantage of GDDR5.


----------



## sliderider (Aug 9, 2015)

With the compute power this card has and the low power consumption, there are going to be a lot of people switching to these in their Bitcoin mining rigs. The cost of electricity is your biggest expense so if you can cut that substantially without losing computing power, it makes it more profitable to do.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 10, 2015)

sliderider said:


> With the compute power this card has and the low power consumption, there are going to be a lot of people switching to these in their Bitcoin mining rigs. The cost of electricity is your biggest expense so if you can cut that substantially without losing computing power, it makes it more profitable to do.


that kinda work on card tends to draw a lot of power and make lots of heat so its down to if that cooler on the card is good enough to make it worth it.


----------



## 64K (Aug 10, 2015)

sliderider said:


> With the compute power this card has and the low power consumption, there are going to be a lot of people switching to these in their Bitcoin mining rigs. The cost of electricity is your biggest expense so if you can cut that substantially without losing computing power, it makes it more profitable to do.



Is Bitcoin mining still a factor for AMD cards? The last I read about it said that it was no longer worth doing for the average guy. That mining craze was a mess for anyone wanting an AMD card a while back. It caused shortages in supplies and retailers gouged just because they could. I'm not sure what AMD will suggest the retail price to be for the Nano but if it matches or is slightly better than the 290x and you can pick up a 290x for $260 then they will either have to pull the 290x from the supply chain and eat the cost of doing that or sell the Nano for less than $400 at least, maybe even lower.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 10, 2015)

GPU mining died ages ago.
ASIC farms are where the money moved to.


----------

