# AMD Radeon R9 Nano Core Configuration Detailed



## btarunr (Aug 26, 2015)

AMD's upcoming mini-ITX friendly graphics card, the Radeon R9 Nano, which boasts of a typical board power of just 175W, is not a heavily stripped-down R9 Fury X, as was expected. The card will feature the full complement of GCN compute units physically present on the "Fiji" silicon, and in terms of specifications, is better loaded than even the R9 Fury. Specifications sheet of the R9 Nano leaked to the web, revealing that the card will feature all 4,096 stream processors physically present on the chip, along with 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It will feature 4 GB of memory across the chip's 4096-bit HBM interface. 

In terms of clock speeds, the R9 Nano isn't too far behind the R9 Fury X on paper - its core is clocked up to 1000 MHz, with its memory ticking at 500 MHz (512 GB/s). So how does it get down to 175W typical board power, from the 275W of the R9 Fury X? It's theorized that AMD could be using an aggressive power/temperature based clock-speed throttle. The resulting performance is 5-10% higher than the Radeon R9 290X, while never breaching a power target. Korean tech blog DGLee posted pictures of an R9 Nano taken apart. Its PCB is smaller than even that of the R9 Fury X, and makes do with a slimmer 4+2 phase VRM, than the 6+2 phase VRM found on the R9 Fury X.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Scrizz (Aug 26, 2015)

nice


----------



## mr2009 (Aug 26, 2015)

Reviews gonna bring out the true color of this card potential. I really hope they do deliver...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 26, 2015)

If power throttling can be disabled (or limit significantly increased), then this will be a great card.

Otherwise, it's a dog turd like Fury X.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 26, 2015)

TheGuruStud said:


> If power throttling can be disabled (or limit significantly increased), then this will be a great card.
> 
> Otherwise, it's a dog turd like Fury X.



I don't think with that VRM, its throttling can be relaxed enough to match Fury X performance.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2015)

TheGuruStud said:


> If power throttling can be disabled (or limit significantly increased), then this will be a great card.
> 
> Otherwise, it's a dog turd like Fury X.



I think the reduction in core VRM from 6 to 4 (33% down) will mean any power limit bypassing will have to use little extra voltage.  FWIW, Fiji isn't a turd, it was just a marketing mess.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 26, 2015)

interested in reading the review.


----------



## geon2k2 (Aug 26, 2015)

Well, since it has the full core, this is gonna be expensive, so it is mostly a small form factor enthusiast card, not a mid-range mass market card


----------



## john_ (Aug 26, 2015)

Up to 1000MHz? AND 4096 SPs? WTF? Is this at 20nm? I was expecting the GPU to be close to 800MHz.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 26, 2015)

john_ said:


> Up to 1000MHz? AND 4096 SPs? WTF? Is this at 20nm? I was expecting the GPU to be close to 800MHz.



28nm. Why is it so hard to believe? 28nm is a very mature process. We have been running high SP and highly clocked cards for a while now.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 26, 2015)

john_ said:


> *Up to* 1000MHz? AND 4096 SPs? WTF? Is this at 20nm? I was expecting the GPU to be close to 800MHz.


I suspect the " up to" might be a significant factor in most situations.

AMD are clearly marketing the card for SFF applications, but I doubt too many reviews - if any, are going to use a SFF test environment (maybe an open air version at best).


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 26, 2015)

It's the clock increase that can require voltage increase beyond reasonable numbers.

For example, my HD7950, I could overclock it from stock 900MHz to 1000MHz without any voltage change (stock 1075mV I think). For 1100MHz I needed around 1.2V, for 1200MHz it was at 1.38V even though I've made the same 100MHz increase as before.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that voltage isn't receiving linear increase with same clock increases. Once you get to a certain point, voltages have to skyrocket in order to maintain linear clocks increase.

Maybe 1050MHz is already that point for Fiji (used on Fury X), that's why it needs water cooling and we know how power usage spiked on overclocks. But Nano is clocked 50MHz lower and that gives it all the headroom to lower the voltages. It just won't be a mad overclocker due to power circuitry limitations.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Aug 26, 2015)

I wonder what this baby would do if put under water, I mean, it packs quite a punch, too bad they cut the number of VRMs, but if somehow people would find a way to overvolt this little card, in theory it could be pushed beyond the performance of a vanilla Fury, right?


----------



## nem (Aug 26, 2015)

Nano... *o*


----------



## Xajel (Aug 26, 2015)

Well done AMD, the first HBM is very promising for those who want to upgrade this time...

but for those who have other plans ( 2016 plan ), then waiting for HBM2 will be interesting, not because AMD will be able to have 8GB and more of VRAM... but we will be able to see both AMD and NV offerings also...

I'll be very interested in Nano like products, Nano 2 from AMD or what ever NV will come with will be interesting for my next build which should be a miniITX build... hell we might get AMD Zen also in the mix to see how it will do against Skylake or Kaby Lake as we're looking at 2H16 timeframe


----------



## john_ (Aug 26, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 28nm. Why is it so hard to believe? 28nm is a very mature process. We have been running high SP and highly clocked cards for a while now.


 Yes I know. I just wasn't expecting reading 1000MHz.



HumanSmoke said:


> I suspect the " up to" might be a significant factor in most situations.
> 
> AMD are clearly marketing the card for SFF applications, but I doubt too many reviews - if any, are going to use a SFF test environment (maybe an open air version at best).


 Yes, that performance slide do say in every way possible that, that 1000MHz, is just to make the average john_ to post "wow!". Well, AMD is shooting it's foot in marketing, every time they come out with a new product and probably that "Up to 1000Mhz" could be a nice excuse for many tech sites to post something negative in their reviews, like "We only managed to see those 1000MHz for 5 seconds in that game's intro, while testing the system with an open case, in north pole". If this does happen, then I would say that someone should fire the person who doesn't fire the marketing department. Then fire the marketing department too. 



RejZoR said:


> Maybe 1050MHz is already that point for Fiji (used on Fury X), that's why it needs water cooling and we know how power usage spiked on overclocks.


 The first time I looked at a slide pointing at Nano's efficiency compared to Fury X's, I assumed that Fury X cards are in fact all factory overclocked. And why not. AMD is doing it with 200 and 300 series cards. Why not with Fiji?


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 26, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I think the reduction in core VRM from 6 to 4 (33% down) will mean any power limit bypassing will have to use little extra voltage.  FWIW, Fiji isn't a turd, it was just a marketing mess.



AMD usually isn't too bad in this VRM department (after all, the GTX 480s were blowing up, as well as certain 780 Tis); plus, I feel like bulk of the aggressive power targets is going to affect the core.



geon2k2 said:


> Well, since it has the full core, this is gonna be expensive, so it is mostly a small factor enthusiast card, not a mid-range mass market card



Never marketed as, never meant to be, and never will be sold as a mass market card. Need a GTX 970 competitor without killing your wallet? Go buy a 390.



HumanSmoke said:


> I suspect the " up to" might be a significant factor in most situations.
> 
> AMD are clearly marketing the card for SFF applications, but I doubt too many reviews - if any, are going to use a SFF test environment (maybe an open air version at best).



"Up to" is AMD's favourite term. We witnessed this with the HD 7xxx, R9 2xx, R9 3xx and now the Fiji family. Always "up to xxx MHz". Only when the card is released will we be able to see for ourselves what the stock base clock is like; however, I have a feeling that the R9 Nano is going to bring something to the table that we haven't seen before in this regard, due to its TDP requirements.



RejZoR said:


> It's the clock increase that can require voltage increase beyond reasonable numbers.
> 
> For example, my HD7950, I could overclock it from stock 900MHz to 1000MHz without any voltage change (stock 1075mV I think). For 1100MHz I needed around 1.2V, for 1200MHz it was at 1.38V even though I've made the same 100MHz increase as before.
> 
> ...



This. It's why I hope that the Nano's VRM is in line with AMD's tradition of good VRMs, yet is engineered so that users cannot take advantage of the binned Fiji XT's voltage characteristics to push it past a Fury X when equipped with a FC Block. It's a niche card, and isn't meant to be selling like hot cakes, despite the fact that it probably will due to the sheer hype and anticipation from mostly uninformed users. The Fury X and Fury are what AMD is trying to steer us towards; overloading AMD's supply chain for the Nano isn't going to do them any good. I can see it now: Nano out of stock @ NCIX for the next 8 months, while Fury X is out of stock because of lack of demand, while R9 Fury is just sitting on the shelves, waiting on something that'll never come.

@john_ Firing the marketing team isn't going to change the mentality at AMD, even though the bad marketing is at the centre of their problems. They've made countless mistakes over the past 4 years alone, and now it's as if every part of AMD is adopting an unmotivated, slacking, waiting-for-the-end attitude.


----------



## Ebo (Aug 26, 2015)

If these specs holds out, and its true then I wish for W1zzard to test it, and come up with a way to work arround the voltage, since the card only have 175 watt, that would be awsome, just like allways when he does his magic.

I have a few concirns about HBM1 since it cant go above 4GB, so Im waiting for HBM2 instead, and I dont feel like any of the Fury series will bring a lot to the table over my R9 290 from Sapphire, since my card gives even the new series a run for its money especially if I turn up the juice on it.

But the Nano might do it fore me, so I will upgrade, especially under water and turn up the juice, I have the itch for new hardware. I really dont need any new hardware,* but *the feeling in the right fingertip is becomming close to hit the buy button.


----------



## Folterknecht (Aug 26, 2015)

tabascosauz said:


> Never marketed as, never meant to be, and never will be sold as a mass market card. Need a GTX 970 competitor without killing your wallet? Go buy a 390.



And that is exactly AMDs problem. They need a card that can really compete with the GTX970, because 390(X) sucks balls at that price point. Same performance and price (in case of 390X totally overpriced) as the 970, which you can OC easy to 390X levels. I wont pay the same money for a card that doesnt ofter more performance but draws 100-150W more with all the related issues.

And please dont start with the 8GB nonsense, its a marketing gag (GT620 4GB much). For single GPUs setups it's useless in most cases - Hawai doesnt have the horsepower to make use of it. Hawai (290/390) and 970/980 are 1080/1440p cards.


I was really hoping for a 970 alternative to replace my GTX570.


----------



## commando55555 (Aug 26, 2015)

the cooler looks cheap and nasty.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 26, 2015)

"Up to 1000MHz" = you'll see 1000MHz for a couple of milliseconds at best. Most of the time it will run at a far lower core clock.

Overclocking on this card is going to be nonexistent because it will probably catch fire, but that's okay because Fury/Fiji overclocks like s**t anyway, so why would you even bother.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> "Up to 1000MHz" = you'll see 1000MHz for a couple of milliseconds at best. Most of the time it will run at a far lower core clock.
> 
> Overclocking on this card is going to be nonexistent because it will probably catch fire, but that's okay because Fury/Fiji overclocks like s**t anyway, so why would you even bother.



Just enjoy it the way it comes in default. It is not supposed to overclock and noone gives you such options.


----------



## buildzoid (Aug 26, 2015)

So 4 phase VRM... Nothing an E-power can't fix.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

I hope this has cherry picked chips!


----------



## commando55555 (Aug 26, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> I hope this has cherry picked chips!



what would be the point doesn't oc for shit any way.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

commando55555 said:


> what would be the point doesn't oc for shit any way.



When will you understand that the card itself will be damn fast even without overclocking and with overlock you will achieve nothing but nonsense?


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

commando55555 said:


> what would be the point doesn't oc for shit any way.



I guess that would mean lower operating voltage at the same clock speed, lower power consumption and lower temperatures, so it could be close to Fury X's performance at such form factor. Also it may have some room to oc a little bit...


----------



## commando55555 (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> When will you understand that the card itself will be damn fast even without overclocking and with overlock you will achieve nothing but nonsense?



When will you understand that when buying a card oc is consideration. The fact it doesn't is nonsense the 980 ti is pretty dam fast but that 30% oc is pretty nice.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

commando55555 said:


> When will you understand that when buying a card oc is consideration.



No, it's just a wishful thinking from your side and no one guarantees you anything. Actually the opposite - you can void your warranty by changing the factory defauults. 


commando55555 said:


> The fact it doesn't is nonsense the 980 ti is pretty dam fast but that 30% oc is pretty nice.



Yeah, sure those magic 30%. I guess it woun't throttle even a tiny bit.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> "Up to 1000MHz" = you'll see 1000MHz for a couple of milliseconds at best. Most of the time it will run at a far lower core clock.
> 
> Overclocking on this card is going to be nonexistent because it will probably catch fire, but that's okay because Fury/Fiji overclocks like s**t anyway, so why would you even bother.



Jesus christ every damn AMD article you're always negative, give it a rest.


----------



## commando55555 (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> No, it's just a wishful thinking from your side and no one guarantees you anything. Actually the opposite - you can void your warranty by changing the factory defauults.
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure those magic 30%. I guess it woun't throttle even a tiny bit.


I know not all chips will oc the same. But for example 980ti are good oc but it's going to very trial and error. The bottom line is some people like to oc for these people this card is a turd.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 26, 2015)

Lionheart said:


> Jesus christ every damn AMD article you're always negative, give it a rest.



I'll stop being negative towards AMD, when AMD marketing stops lying to their customers and delivers the products they promise.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 26, 2015)

It's probably going to be 800Mhz and 1000MHz max boost until it reaches the thermal limit. I can't see it running at 1GHz with this tiny cooler and same core configuration as Fury X. It just makes no sense even compared to vanilla Fury with its massive coolers.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 26, 2015)

*VideoCardz.com*


----------



## cokker (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> I'll stop being negative towards AMD, when AMD marketing stops lying to their customers and delivers the products they promise.



"GTX 970"


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Aug 26, 2015)

What's that I hear!?

Oh it's just the hype train making its rounds.


I do hope it’s a good card, for all our sakes, but till the benchmarks hit it’s just a pretty face.

But I do wonder what the temps/noise will be like. Seeing as the non X Fury got to 70C and it has a massive cooler.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2015)

So....

What AMD has delivered is a very small card, that should reasonably approximate a much larger card sans overclocking.  Honestly though, did anyone expect a card this small to somehow come in with insane overclocking?  If they did, they were asking for something pretty crazy.

The card is interesting as a thought experiment.  Move it to14nm, and HBM2 at 8 GB, and you'll have something truly amazing for the HTPC gaming crowd.  As it stands now, meh.  It'll be an expensive niche card that is great for someone needing a small form factor.  Regular users won't allow the price premium, so it won't be something for the mainstream.  I can see this card being amazing at 390 pricing, but it's not likely to be that reasonable.



As far as the AMD/NVIDIA debate, both companies are full of crap.  AMD did do a rather hatchet job selling its current generation of GPU, but if you forgot the 970 debacle you're pure fanboy.  Take everything with a grain of salt until it has been bench marked.


----------



## SonicZap (Aug 26, 2015)

Hawaii suddenly becomes very efficient with lower clock speeds - some users have reported their R9 290X power consumption being lowered by half with an underclock to 750 MHz or so. It's likely the same case here, dropping clock speeds and voltage makes Fiji a lot more efficient than the implementation in Fury X.

I'm not in the market for buying Nano, but I'm interested to see how efficient it is. It might even be more efficient than Maxwell considering that Fury (non-X) is already very close to Maxwell in power efficiency.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2015)

The only niche competition it has, the itx 970's came out in late 2014.  It's easily the fastest itx card.
As for clocks, that's how the professional cards hit power limits, low clocks.
Given the stock Fiji chip being used, I guess some firmware is involved, unless there is PCB hardware for power limiting.  If its hardware, no over clocking but if its firmware, it'll be flash happy.  But risky....


----------



## 64K (Aug 26, 2015)

Price and performance need to be seen but maybe there won't be scarcity. Fury have started showing up where I buy my hardware but still no Fury X unless you want to be gouged at Amazon. I don't know why anyone would pay $1,000 for a Fury X.

If the Nano performs close to a 980 then efficiency is definitely good.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2015)

btarunr said:


> So how does it get down to 175W typical board power, from the 275W of the R9 Fury X? It's theorized that AMD could be using an aggressive power/temperature based clock-speed throttle.


That's concerning.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 26, 2015)

There is an "11" footnote marker on the "Compute Units" section of the specs. I would really like to know that footnote actually says. Maybe the CUs are gimped in some way to keep the GPU within TDP and VRM limits? How interesting would it be if CUs disabled themselves if power draw or heat become too big of a problem? CU level power-gating in addition to clock scaling. It could be a blueprint for power saving features going forward on AMD GPUs.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

SonicZap said:


> Hawaii suddenly becomes very efficient with lower clock speeds - some users have reported their R9 290X power consumption being lowered by half with an underclock to 750 MHz or so. It's likely the same case here, dropping clock speeds and voltage makes Fiji a lot more efficient than the implementation in Fury X.



This means that Fiji and Hawaii offer the best or optimal characteristics performance to power ratio in a different part of the curve compared to the ones they are being sold with.

It means that overclocking for more performance scales rather poorly.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

This thing is going to run so hot, and throttle constantly.  Though I'm guessing it will remain at a high enough speed just long enough to get through the benchmarks used in most reviews, so the reviews show way higher performance than you actually get, which is typical for AMD.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> This thing is going to run so hot, and throttle constantly. Though I'm guessing it will remain at a high enough speed just long enough to get through the benchmarks used in most reviews, so the reviews show way higher performance than you actually get, which is typical for AMD.



Afaik this only happened with the reference models based on Hawaii...


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> Afaik this only happened with the reference models based on Hawaii...



I haven't tried a whole lot of the aftermarket cards, but my Sapphire Tri-X's throttled when I had them in crossfire(well the top card throttled).


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I haven't tried a whole lot of the aftermarket cards, but my Sapphire Tri-X's throttled when I had them in crossfire(well the top card throttled).



Maybe it needed more room to breathe. Which cards did you have?


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> I'll stop being negative towards AMD, when AMD marketing stops lying to their customers and delivers the products they promise.


 This coming from the guy who owns a GTX 970...



cokker said:


> "GTX 970"


Yes this sums up my thoughts nicely^


Aquinus said:


> There is an "11" footnote marker on the "Compute Units" section of the specs. I would really like to know that footnote actually says. Maybe the CUs are gimped in some way to keep the GPU within TDP and VRM limits? How interesting would it be if CUs disabled themselves if power draw or heat become too big of a problem? CU level power-gating in addition to clock scaling. It could be a blueprint for power saving features going forward on AMD GPUs.


 It will be interesting to see how this is handled because there are so many questions left open because of this announcement.  I am curious how well this cooler handles things honestly even with that TDP and if it really is going to throttle.  Its a great mystery that I only think will be resolved once we see them all around .


----------



## john_ (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> I'll stop being negative towards AMD, when AMD marketing stops lying to their customers and delivers the products they promise.


So you support Nvidia because it says the truth?
I haven't check if TPU have a subforum with funny stories. Your can quote me and post your answer there.


----------



## 64K (Aug 26, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> This coming from the guy who owns a GTX 970...



I had a GTX 970 before and it was a very nice card. I was an early adopter and got the card before the truth came out. I did think it strange that I got it for $360 when the 980 was $550 with only a little better performance. The previous generation was $400 for the 670 and $500 for the 680. I expected similar pricing.

But yeah, Nvidia definitely told some lies and AMD lies sometimes and Publishers lie sometimes. It's a bit of a shady hobby we're in.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 26, 2015)

Honesty if this card has a competitive price/performance ratio it'll be a really great card for consumers. I'll never understand AMDs reasoning behind using a full Fury X core in it, I swear AMD is trying to kill themselves... I really can't wait for the review of this card, if anything AMD is an extremely interesting company.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2015)

It could be that Fury X gets the low ASIC quality chips and Nano gets the high ASIC quality chips.

We don't know the price yet.  At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the price is close to Fury X's.  Nano effectively is Fury X for small form factor computers (Steam Machines comes to mind).


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 26, 2015)

If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste _delicious_.


----------



## Anusha (Aug 26, 2015)

I think it is about time I got rid of my Korean panel.

Pricing though...$500?


----------



## a_ump (Aug 26, 2015)

Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.
> 
> And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.
> 
> Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste _delicious_.



As a 980ti Kingpin owner (quite possibly the most Nvidia centric fanboy card you can buy), your comment about the 4gb is absolute crap. The 970 does work well but it does not address the full 4gb in a normal fashion. It only utilises 3.3gb-3.5gb and the remainder throttles performance when called upon.
It still performs well and I'll defend that but Nvidia CLEARLY mislead consumers about 4gb, when the last 0.5gb can hinder performance, though as stated, very few scenarios get to that point.


----------



## alucasa (Aug 26, 2015)

In SFF builds and I've built a lot of them, Geforce x60 GTX is the limit I put on it. SFF case's lack of air flow and small volume means I shouldn't put anything more powerful than that.


----------



## Mr McC (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.
> 
> And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.
> 
> Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste _delicious_.



Assimilator, try to focus on the product in hand rather than derailing the thread by acting as an apologist for nVidia products that clearly entailed the false advertising you claim you are unwilling to forgive in the case of AMD. The accusations of fanboyism you level against others are discredited by your refusal to apply the same yardstick in each case. Would you measure your own schlong in centimetres and everyone else's in inches and compare without converting units to support your belief that you are the new Ron Jeremy?


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 26, 2015)

64K said:


> I had a GTX 970 before and it was a very nice card. I was an early adopter and got the card before the truth came out. I did think it strange that I got it for $360 when the 980 was $550 with only a little better performance. The previous generation was $400 for the 670 and $500 for the 680. I expected similar pricing.
> 
> But yeah, Nvidia definitely told some lies and AMD lies sometimes and Publishers lie sometimes. It's a bit of a shady hobby we're in.


Its just an unfortunate game we all play, its part of being a computer hobbyist as things are not always what they seem.  We all get through it somehow though 



Assimilator said:


> If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.
> 
> And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.
> 
> Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste _delicious_.


One of the only clear fanboys here is you since you see fit to trash talk most AMD product news.  If you want to talk about people being fanboys, look in a mirror.



the54thvoid said:


> As a 980ti Kingpin owner (quite possibly the most Nvidia centric fanboy card you can buy), your comment about the 4gb is absolute crap. The 970 does work well but it does not address the full 4gb in a normal fashion. It only utilises 3.3gb-3.5gb and the remainder throttles performance when called upon.
> It still performs well and I'll defend that but Nvidia CLEARLY mislead consumers about 4gb, when the last 0.5gb can hinder performance, though as stated, very few scenarios get to that point.


^This sums it up quite nicely!



a_ump said:


> Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.


Depends on the cards, recent video cards can overclock a lot better (Especially on NVidias side) than in the past where it was a lot more luck of the draw.  I had Dual GTX 980's which could only achieve about 980mhz core clock max while my friends stopped at 925mhz.  Then I had a set of HD 6990's both of which attained a 1000mhz overclock on the cores where as another friend had one that could hit a little over 1000mhz (I think 1025 though I cannot remember) and another that could even break 940.  Overclocking in any form anyways only gets you some gains up to a point.  If you really want overclocking cards, your best bet is to buy cards that are designed for it as those are the ones that will have a higher binning cycle (Especially if they start out with higher clocks) like the MSI Lightning series, Asus Matrix, or EVGA Classified's.

I doubt the R9 Nano will have much overclocking at all.  I just want to see this cooler and the card in action so we can understand how it works because having this full core seems a bit weird over just binning out some less than stellar example chips of the bunch.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.
> 
> And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.
> 
> Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste _delicious_.



You sir, are either a willful idiot or a fanboy of the highest caliber. 

Nvidia itself basically said that they sold a 3 GB card, with a memory structure whose last bits were only designed such that  "...GTX 970 is a 4GB card. However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment..."  That article that quote comes from can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-boss-responds-to-gtx-970-false-advertising-/1100-6425510/

If you are to be truly honest, that's the Nvidia team peddling BS.  You could bend over backwards and accept their logic, but if you do so then the Fury Xis the absolute best card currently on the market.  You just have to reduce your sample size to a few hand picked titles at 4K, where the 980ti is beaten. 


What we are arguing is to have a consistent standard for judgement.  Right now, you've got two options.  Either both companies peddle whatever BS will move cards, or both companies are 100% honest because they can find at least one instance where their claims are true. 

Nvidia, AMD, and Intel all say whatever they need to to move hardware.  This is why being an early adopter sucks so hard.  If you don't wait for reviews, you'll always be disappointed.  Stating that one manufacturer, or another, is uniformly better is stupid.  Neither is better than the other, only their currently offered products are better or worse when measured to one another.


Edit:
If the 3.5 GB memory thing is still an impasse, maybe you should review an article from a year ago, that is surprisingly still accurate today http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2014-08-05/7-things-nvidia-doesnt-want-know/.

That's right, people doing actual coding work with OpenCL and CUDA are calling Nvidia on BS.  Kinda seems like the people actually using GPUs for stuff other than gaming recognize that AMD may not be doing well, but it's because of their marketing and not actual performance.  If the AMD marketing was half as slimy as Nvidia they'd be claiming Fury X cured cancer, because it can be used for BOINC and the like.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 26, 2015)

a_ump said:


> Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.



I took 2 GTX 480's from 700 core to 882 that's a 26% overclock on air. Had a 2900 XT go from 743 core to 985 core that's a 32.5% overclock(granted that was on water). My X1800XT went from 625 core to 780 24.8% (also on water) Even my old X700 pro went from 425 to 515, a 21% clock (granted that was pencil modded) and a Radeon 9000 that went from 200 to 250, a 25% clock and that didn't even hit pro levels as that was 275 core and would have been a 37.5% overclock. 

Perhaps you're buying pre-clocked cards because 30% doesn't seem rare to me at all. Now 50% that's rare. 

In fact the only cards that haven't at least hit 20% were my 9800 pro 256MB, an X1950XT, a 9600GT, and a GTX 295 FTW edition. Aside from the 9800 pro all the rest were preclocked by the manufacturer and you can't expect a 20% overclock on top of an existing overclock.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You sir, are either a willful idiot or a fanboy of the highest caliber.
> 
> Nvidia itself basically said that they sold a 3 GB card, with a memory structure whose last bits were only designed such that  "...GTX 970 is a 4GB card. However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment..."  That article that quote comes from can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-boss-responds-to-gtx-970-false-advertising-/1100-6425510/
> 
> ...



There is hardly any place for ethics in business, but Nvidia has a long history of taking it to new lows. Selling a 4GB card that isn`t exactly 4GB of the expected GDDR5 is beside the point; the issue is that Nvidia vigorously defended the fact that technically you still get "4GB of VRAM" without acknowledging the issue. I don't, and a lot of people don't give a singular shit about how Nvidia underestimated the effects of employing that kind of crossbar design to achieve that core config. "Oh, it was the best that could be done under the circumstances and we know that we should've been more transparent about it." They knew exactly what they were doing and tried to keep a low profile about it. How anyone can just *accept* this sad excuse of an explanation and *still *have the same amount of confidence in Nvidia products is simply beyond me.

This could go on and on but we could be here forever, making a list of all the times Nvidia has been dirty. I just hope the time comes for Nvidia to pay for its business practices; hell, Intel waded through a load of shit for *one* bit of controversy surrounding OEMs.

Whoever said earlier that the R9 390 is a bullshit product has left me scratching my head. In what way does it not live up to the product it's marketed as? It sure as hell gives the GTX 970 a run for its money, even without any mention of the VRAM. What, do you not have a proper PSU?

Also, someone doesn't seem to understand the importance of binning. Binning is not for OCing alone. In a diminutive card like the Nano, where every bit of the heatsink matters, you don't want some garbage quality chip that takes absurd amounts of voltage to hit the boost clocks you want. 30% overclocks are not that rare in the light of big Maxwell, but suggesting that Nano should've been built around that goal is insanely ridiculous.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

yogurt_21 said:


> I took 2 GTX 480's from 700 core to 882 that's a 26% overclock on air. Had a 2900 XT go from 743 core to 985 core that's a 32.5% overclock(granted that was on water). My X1800XT went from 625 core to 780 24.8% (also on water) Even my old X700 pro went from 425 to 515, a 21% clock (granted that was pencil modded) and a Radeon 9000 that went from 200 to 250, a 25% clock and that didn't even hit pro levels as that was 275 core and would have been a 37.5% overclock.
> 
> Perhaps you're buying pre-clocked cards because 30% doesn't seem rare to me at all. Now 50% that's rare.
> 
> In fact the only cards that haven't at least hit 20% were my 9800 pro 256MB, an X1950XT, a 9600GT, and a GTX 295 FTW edition. Aside from the 9800 pro all the rest were preclocked by the manufacturer and you can't expect a 20% overclock on top of an existing overclock.



I have also never experienced any noticeable up clocks on any of my video cards. Must be poor luck as well.

I don't know how you achieve that - must be something intentional, no? Like cherry picking cards plus water ?


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Aug 26, 2015)

So in theory this card should cost more than the Fury X because it's specially binned chips to hit a lower power, it'll have a fully uncut chip...

I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...

This product seems so niche it's silly.  Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> Maybe it needed more room to breathe. Which cards did you have?



Sapphire 290X Tri-X's.  They were in my Z97 Extreme6, so the top card had a nice gap to breath.  It still hit 94°C and started to throttle after about half an hour of gaming.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

HisDivineOrder said:


> So in theory this card should cost more than the Fury X because it's specially binned chips to hit a lower power, it'll have a fully uncut chip...
> 
> I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...
> 
> This product seems so niche it's silly.  Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?



Let's make these things clear:

- R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury;
- R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually we expect price tag in line of around 450$;
- It won't be niche - it should be the new standard or paving the way for new generations of small cards;
- Fury X doesn't need custom boards - you won't achieve anything if you are seeking for guinness record clock heights. It's the best with water and let it please stay with WATER !


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2015)

HisDivineOrder said:


> I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...
> 
> This product seems so niche it's silly.  Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?


That's what concerns me.  It'll have performance between 290X and 390X but I'm increasingly thinking that it will be priced above the 390X--maybe closer to Fury.  If that's the case, might as well go with 390X.  Nano would only be appealing for SFF builds.

The price should be announced tomorrow.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 26, 2015)

btarunr said:


> I don't think with that VRM, its throttling can be relaxed enough to match Fury X performance.





Sony Xperia S said:


> - R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury;
> - R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually we expect price tag in line of around 450$;


You'd be surprised I would imagine.......................


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's what concerns me.  It'll have performance between 290X and 390X but I'm increasingly thinking that it will be priced above the 390X--maybe closer to Fury.  If that's the case, might as well go with 390X.  Nano would only be appealing for SFF builds.
> 
> The price should be announced tomorrow.


 I agree, with this announcement the pricing is of concern along with at least for me the cooler on the card.  I believe it looks like it could handle it but I am still curious to see it in action since they are restricting this to reference only as far as I can tell (Which leads me to believe it will be more than adequate).


----------



## SonicZap (Aug 26, 2015)

I'm fairly certain that the price will be high, they still have problems getting enough Fury GPUs out to sell, and another product using the same die won't help at all. They'll be grabbing money from the people who build small form factor systems, for most usage cases the R9 390 and 390X will be the better choice. If something else happens, I'm going to be surprised.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2015)

HisDivineOrder said:


> Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?



You and the world want to know.  To keep it a halo product? To ensure no QA problems with the chip? to ensure thermal design envelopes?
The voltage has been tested by W1zzard and he got the result that it doesn't respond very well to over voltage, so perhaps custom cards are unnecessary.  But it seems Nano may make use of a backwards approach, limit voltage input to keep tdp down tight, allowing the compact cooler.
I think Fiji in general is too immature to be tested properly.  It's like when the initial Tahiti (7970) came out with conservative clocks.  AMD may have been cagey to prevent chip problems but with hindsight, released the 'GHz Editions' that rivalled the GTX680.
Fiji came close to nailing it (but in PR terms, still so far away) so I think the next chip or a respin might make a huge difference.
We know DX12 will make a difference in AMD's favour so it'll be interesting next year with AMD's HBM experience and Nvidia getting their effort out.
As for Nano, we'll see tomorrow.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Let's make these things clear:
> 
> - R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury;
> - R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually we expect price tag in line of around 450$;
> ...



I think we're on the same side, and you still make me want to reevaluate my thought process.
1) Faster than a product that is one generation old, and functionally a twice baked 7970.  Kinda depressing really.
2) Price tag pulled straight from your backside.  _*We*_ don't expect anything, you have expectations.  My only expectation is that the price tag will be north of what I would spend on the third time around for this process node.  Of course, that's not a definitive number.  You seem to be measuring only by "less than a fury," but "more than a 390."  Seems like you've got a real winner there, with an almost $300 wide window.  
3) Do you understand what niche means?  The niche application for this is either an HTPC or other SFF computer, where money seems to be no object.  Most people have a budget, which means the same performance could be had cheaper at the cost of space.  Given that gamers generally have spacious cases, budgetary restrictions, the desire for raw performance, or some combination thereof you've got a niche product.  Being king of a niche isn't bad, but believing reigning over a niche makes you a success is stupid.  Blackberry ruled the niche of work smart phones, but died because their niche was too shallow.
4) Derp.  Just plain derp.  I'm sorry, but if you're spending that kind of money on a card, you should be able to cool it however you want.  I'd be happy with Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, or another partner to come forward with a 10% increased cost card ($63 at $630 is exactly that), that supported excellent overclocking on air but required three slots.  I'd be happy with someone releasing an underclocked "efficiency" version of the card that was cheaper because they cut some corners.  What makes some people angry is AMD putting their foot down, especially for a product that might not be fantastic (coil whine on the pumps?) for the huge price.   Cards sell better when there are options.  Options are predicated on being able to choose performance targets and design to them.  Saying "Fury is meant to be under water" is like saying Fury isn't meant to run, so break its knees.  It already has a perfectly fine wheel chair it can get around in.



Seriously, stop trying to talk for everyone.  Every time you do it makes me angry, because you assume we agree with your points.  If you think something, so be it.  If you tell me I think something, you'd better be prepared to retract your points when they are demonstrably unfounded.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 26, 2015)

It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.

But these things are mysteries for you.

Probably you are typing just to argue with someone who has better points than you. 
I got used to your points and honestly - I am sick of them and want something better.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. *You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.*


While true (but by negligible amounts).. does it really matter? There are plenty of air cooled cards that last through their useful life... in fact, nearly all of them are/do. So how is that a selling point? People will want to junk the Fury X in 3/4 years like any other card, be it water or air.

You also have to think a bit more. If it saves a couple of watts (which is being generous, actually) The difference between, say, 1.2v @ 85C vs. 1.2v @ 65C which is where water would take it, there really isn't much savings in power, is there ((NO))? With that said, wouldn't the pump, which most use more watts than a fan, negate those negligible gains for power savings ((YES))?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.



Lower temps have a barely measurable affect on power consumption, and nothing that would matter.  They also won't extend the useful life of a graphics card.  If those are your reasons for using liquid cooling then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

They are plenty of negatives to liquid cooling too, so it is far from silly to prefer air.  I water cooled my systems for years, but went back to air to avoid the hassle.  Now I run an AIO because they largely eliminate most of the hassle, but they still aren't as nice as easy as air cooling.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Sapphire 290X Tri-X's. They were in my Z97 Extreme6, so the top card had a nice gap to breath. It still hit 94°C and started to throttle after about half an hour of gaming.


Maybe the pasting job was not so good, Hawaii runs hot, but that should not happen on the tri-x cooler...


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> Let's make these things clear:
> 
> - *R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury*;
> - R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually *we expect price tag in line of around 450$*;
> ...



So based on your theory, where does the 390X fit in? As for it's pricing, taking into account the price of a 390X at around $420 - $450 how will the 2 fit and who are "we expect a price of 450"?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2015)

Nano should be at or below 390X.  The question now is whether or not that is before or after the thermal throttling.  We won't get that answered until benchmarks are in.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Aug 26, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> *VideoCardz.com*



I must confess I would expect AMD's top of the range Fiji 596 mm2 HBM monster chip to do a little better against a heavily sliced GM204 398 mm2 chip, but I guess a win is a win.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.
> 
> But these things are mysteries for you.
> 
> ...



Two words: Prove it.

Lower temperatures have positive effect: Theoretically true, but a non-point.  Cards without extreme overclocking generally have fans and TIM fail before thermal degredation.  Additionally, you could theoretically clock you GPU at 200 MHz and decrease power consumption drastically.  You'd have a GPU that might well last you your entire life.  Of course, that'd be stupid.  After a few years GPU performance is dramatically better.  Additionally, under clocking would mean your card can't really run any modern games, but superior users have imagination, no.  All they need is a text based RPG and they can imagine the rest of it. Kinda seems like cards are clocked such that performance is as good as possible, with the intended lifetime before most cards die being 3-5 years.  Overclockers might burn through that lifetime faster, but the replacement cycle generally reaps cards before physics.


You have "better points" than me:    In what strange world do you live?  Perhaps it's different, where the physical laws of the universe are somehow fundamentally different.  Cooling with water is not better than cooling with air, because it's the same physical process. An area of higher thermal energy has a fluid of lower thermal energy pass over it.  Due primarily to conductive transference, a part of the thermal energy is transferred to the fluid, and the fluid is moved from the object.  The things that influence how much energy is transferred is the thermal capacity of the fluid, the surface area of contact, and the velocity the fluid is flowing. As such, given enough time and resources I could design an air cooler that beats any water cooler on the market. This is physics in action, and your statement about water is better than air demonstrates you are either ignorant or an idiot.  Hopefully the former, but given our past discourse the later.


You want something better:  Yeah, so do I.  I want real engineers to have a crack at the Fury, and have them show us what it could be.  By your logic, once a single car is put out on the market we should be done.  No SUVs, no trucks, no motorcycles, we only need a motorized one seat car.  That's limiting the playing field, because you're too stubborn or have something up your sleeve that you aren't sharing.  In the case of the former, you're killing potential sales with inflexibility. In the case of the later, you are trying to demonstrate how clever you are by lopping of the end of your nose.  Stupidity through and through.  Or perhaps I'm reading this point wrong.  

Maybe your logic is that we only need one video card from each team.  Nobody wants the 960, 970, 280, 380, 390, 930, or the plethora of other cards.  We only need the 980 and Fury competing.  Everyone playing PC games should own one of these two cards, and the day they are released every other card should automatically combust.  Heck, we only need one card from each team. Let's all make our computers shoot us, should the Steam survey detect anything but the latest piece of hardware in our system.

No matter how I look at your point, it is backwards.  Choices are demonstrably what consumers want, and choices actually make things sell.  Market research proved this year ago.  If you don't agree, walk down a grocery store pasta aisle, and tell me how many brands have only one formulation.  How many have just chunky, just smooth, or even just extra thick.  None.  There is no perfect pasta sauce, and there should be no perfect Fury.  You should choose the one that best fits you.  AMD is taking this choice away, and it is stupid.




Let's be frank.  You've demonstrated unflinching loyalty to a brand that has not earned it.  You've demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of physics, so much that your understanding of anything must first be given as a matter of faith.  You've dismissed accurate criticism, because in your own head there is one right answer, and you always have it.  You've done all this completely unflinchingly, and without ever admitting to the vast gulf between your knowledge and abilities.  I can't even begin to ascribe anything to you but an unfounded zealotry that could potentially make a suicide bomber slightly jealous. 

Realizing that this is inflammatory, perhaps I should end here.  You have demonstrated almost no reasonable opinions, and when asked where you come from you wave your hands in the air and call anyone asking questions an idiot.  Please, peddle your brand of crap elsewhere.  I can take Nvidiots. I can take die hard members of the Red team.  I can even stand members of the Intel superior race.   What I can't take is people who won't admit they are wrong, and those people who when confronted with their error fling crap at anyone who pointed it out.  You are a member of the group of people I despise.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 26, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> There is an "11" footnote marker on the "Compute Units" section of the specs. I would really like to know that footnote actually says.


Here is the relevant footnote slide.  Also, AMD's internal benchmarks vs the GTX 970 mITX card were once again done with no anisotrophic filtering for the most part, so numbers probably will differ from actual reviewers and real world usage scenario's.


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> --



I'm reliving the Skylake thread all over again. Time and time again, he has demonstrated that the comprehension of how the graphics market works, the knowledge of how graphics cards and CPUs work, and the ability to perceive a certain issue from another user's perspective are all far beyond what he is capable of grasping.

Of all the words I typed into that thread, all of them were wasted. It's akin to arguing with someone behind a soundproof wall. He doesn't understand anything that you say, but the bullshit that flows from him is endless.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 26, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> were once again done with no anisotrophic filtering



I am not sure how anisotrophic filtering affects anything other than image quality, the FPS change is <1.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 26, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> I am not sure how anisotrophic filtering affects anything other than image quality, *the FPS change is <1.*


That depends...


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> Maybe the pasting job was not so good, Hawaii runs hot, but that should not happen on the tri-x cooler...



Nah, it is just the fact that when you jam 2 of them in a closed case, even with 3 120mm high CFM exhaust fans and a 200mm intake on my 650D, the heat from two of the cards just builds up, there is no avoiding it.  The top card just runs a good 10°C hotter than the bottom.  Swapping the cards didn't change anything, whichever card was on top was running 10°C hotter than the bottom and would hit 95°C and start to throttle.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Nah, it is just the fact that when you jam 2 of them in a closed case, even with 3 120mm high CFM exhaust fans and a 200mm intake on my 650D, the heat from two of the cards just builds up, there is no avoiding it. The top card just runs a good 10°C hotter than the bottom. Swapping the cards didn't change anything, whichever card was on top was running 10°C hotter than the bottom and would hit 95°C and start to throttle.



I guess AMD wisely chose "Hawaii" for a reason x)


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 26, 2015)

Perhaps focusing more on getting cooler air TO the cards as well as getting air out of the case would have helped. Those 200mm fans barely move any air (most of them). 

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the thread title, so I digress.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 26, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Perhaps focusing more on getting cooler air TO the cards as well as getting air out of the case would have helped. Those 200mm fans barely move any air (most of them).
> 
> Anyway, that has nothing to do with the thread title, so I digress.



If airflow was a problem with my setup, no average user is going to be able to avoid throttling.  The rear exhaust in the case is 75CFM, the two top exhausts are pushing 100CFM each minimum and kick up to 150CFM when things get hot.

The front 200mm is rated for 130CFM and runs full blast all the time. Yes, the 200mm fans seem like they don't push a lot of air, because you can't feel it, but they actually do move a lot of air, just at a lower pressure.  But even still, the exhaust is pulling air in from the other vents in the computer, so the intake isn't as important.  And there was plenty of heat coming out of the top of my case, it was insane.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 26, 2015)

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-n...fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/

$649???


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 26, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-n...fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/
> 
> $649???



Same chip, plus SFF novelty. I believe it.

Even if wccftech are just idiot clickbaiters


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2015)

Fury X = desktops
Nano = SFF

That's what I was afraid of and it is entirely possible.  It puts me in a pickle.    I might have to go Fury or 290X.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 27, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-n...fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/
> 
> $649???


Well, if AMD pull that off I'll be amazed.

Same price as the Fury X
Pro's:  It's 1 inch shorter
Con's: No AIO....lower clocks....lower board power limit.....lower input power available even if the board power limit can be circumvented

Tell me it ain't so


Spoiler


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 27, 2015)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-n...fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/
> 
> $649???



Yeah, looks like the GTX 970 then. No one in their right mind is buying that thing for $650 when even the already overpriced GTX 970 DC Mini sells for about $440-460.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 27, 2015)

tabascosauz said:


> Yeah, looks like the GTX 970 then. No one in their right mind is buying that thing for $650 when even the already overpriced GTX 970 DC Mini sells for about $440-460.


I think the assumption is that the $649 is MSRP in $US.
Having said that, Gigabyte's GTX 970 mini is the same length as the Nano/Asus GTX970 DC2 at 170mm/6.7" , and *is $300*. ( the Asus card is presently $335 at the Egg). It would be interesting to see how many people would justify a ~30%  increase in performance for a 216% increase in price - especially when AMD themselves are offering a better equipped card offering better performance at the same (supposed) price point.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 27, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> That depends...


on?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2015)

Welp, that $649 price tag made me buy a 290X for $310.  I have to repost HumanSmoke's picture because it is so true:




I went half AMD!


----------



## john_ (Aug 27, 2015)

AMD is like a team that scores two own goals in the last five minutes of the match, while winning 1-0, out of fear that it might win.

I was expecting a price above $500. But the same price as 980Ti? YOU F#$%^&*ING MORONS IF EVGA (for example) COMES OUT WITH A 980TI ITX WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT NANO? The fact that a 980Ti ITX would be a couple of inches longer, is not going to save Nano.

Nano will probably go only in ready systems, like Alienware's where you can hide the price, or sell it to Alienware for $550 and not $650. But in retail they will probably sell less cards than the number of posts in here.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> on?


The game, and resolution. It's true it isn't a huge penalty but to make a blanket statement like that makes it false as there are plenty of games/resolutions that show WAY more loss than 1 fps.


----------



## LightningJR (Aug 27, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> The game, and resolution. It's true it isn't a huge penalty but to make a blanket statement like that makes it false as there are plenty of games/resolutions that show WAY more loss than 1 fps.



I have never experienced it, I give the blanket statement because afaik it's correct. If you've played PC games since 1998 and ALWAYS mess with graphics options this would be clear. I have had more FPS increase from closing background apps.

Plenty of games? WAY more loss than 1 fps? Would love to see these results.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 27, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> I have never experienced it, I give the blanket statement because afaik it's correct. If you've played PC games since 1998 and ALWAYS mess with graphics options this would be clear. I have had more FPS increase from closing background apps.
> 
> Plenty of games? WAY more loss than 1 fps? Would love to see these results.


It wouldn't take too much to do a couple benchmark runs with and without. If I wasn't limited to just my laptop for the week, it would test it out myself.

Personally, I've seen AF reduce frame-rate by more than 1 FPS but, it's no where as heavy as AA is. From a technical standpoint, AF is highly dependent on memory bandwidth unlike AA which is more dependent on the speed and quantity of the ROPs.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> I have never experienced it, I give the blanket statement because afaik it's correct. If you've played PC games since 1998 and ALWAYS mess with graphics options this would be clear. I have had more FPS increase from closing background apps.
> 
> Plenty of games? WAY more loss than 1 fps? Would love to see these results.


more loss than 1 fps.. but as Aquinus said, it's not much. Sorry to be so pedantic about jt


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 27, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> The game, and resolution. It's true it isn't a huge penalty but to make a blanket statement like that makes it false as there are plenty of games/resolutions that show WAY more loss than 1 fps.


Quite true.
AMD disabled AF for a reason, not on a whim. Benchmarking AF isn't usually done in reviews because it's generally an automatic check-boxed image quality setting. The only one I managed to find that is relatively recent (i.e. comparing the impact on GCN) is HardOCP's Watch Dogs performance review

Nvidia GTX 780 Ti - virtually no penalty......................................................................................................................................AMD R9 290X  ~ 6% performance hit










I'm pretty sure that AMD worked out the optimal settings to best showcase their product - and leaving AF disabled seems to one of them. If it were inconsequential, I'm sure they would have left enabled as most reviewers and users would.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 27, 2015)

LightningJR said:


> I am not sure how anisotrophic filtering affects anything other than image quality, the FPS change is <1.



Your math seems bogus.  Perhaps professor google will find some better math.

By jove, it did. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/51994-the-naked-truth-about-anisotropic-filtering/3

They show that even in 2002 we could do math.  What a revelation.  Seriously though, please check what you are about to say prior to making blanket statements.  If professor google can prove you wrong that fast then maybe you should slow down a tiny bit.




The article, in summary, is old.  The tested cards demonstrate x16 AF causing between 50% and 6% drops in frame rate with older hardware.  Conversely, this is utilizing games where the draw distance and resolution are much smaller.  It could therefore be reasonably approximated that AF is likely to have somewhere between a 1% and 25% (resolution bumps up to 1920x1080 as a standard, but 13 years of gaming is about 8 generations of cards) impact on performance, depending upon resolution, draw distance, level of AF, and available hardware.  Assuming that your game was running as 60 FPS, that's between 1 and 15 FPS.  Sorry, but that's not a negligible impact.


----------

