# AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4 GB



## W1zzard (Sep 15, 2015)

The Radeon R9 Nano is AMD's solution for all small-form-factor system builders that want to create a 4K-capable gaming PC in a tiny volume. Thanks to a new approach to power management, the card stays below 200 W at all times, while still delivering excellent framerates.

*Show full review*


----------



## ShurikN (Sep 17, 2015)

A great card, definitely, but the price man... the price.
$550 max.
Then again it's a niche product. Probably the "nichest" of them all


----------



## KarymidoN (Sep 17, 2015)

Awesome review W1zz.

I believe that after this card AMD is destined for bankruptcy, sorry AMD users (I am one), but it is the sad reality, in terms of competitiveness AMD managed to lose both Intel and for Nvidia.
Long ago that AMD has not released a product that offers competition, this of course is bad for customers, who can choose to use an AMD product with low performance and a cheaper price (eg processors) or pay more if you want performance and technology (intel processors).


----------



## happita (Sep 17, 2015)

ShurikN said:


> A great card, definitely, but the price man... the price.
> $550 max.
> Then again it's a niche product. Probably the "nichest" of them all



This is true. It's pretty much a miniaturized Fury non-X. The price is somewhat warranted because of the way it was designed. But at the same time I can't help but think they saved a little bit of money from the PCB's rather small real estate. I can't wait for HBM2 cards from both camps to come out next year, that's when we'll see some real marvels of tech!


----------



## Sasqui (Sep 17, 2015)

So you did get a sample after all?

Given the size and power consumption, it's pretty amazing.  For a desktop (non SFF), can't see the price tag drawing me in...


----------



## Random Murderer (Sep 17, 2015)

Wow. I expected more for the price, but on the flip side, I expected less from the form factor and TDP. Kudos AMD, you've made an excellent SFF card. Now if only it didn't cost the same as the Fury X...


----------



## xkche (Sep 17, 2015)

Awful card that i like have in my PC


----------



## newbsandwich (Sep 17, 2015)

Wow, surprised to see this review on here, didn't think you were getting this card.  Anyway, agree with the general consensus, great card for the SFF, but as with all the latest AMD cards, overpriced.  I just imagine if they cut the price of all their cards, they'd sale a whole lot more.


----------



## MakeDeluxe (Sep 17, 2015)

Dat coil whine


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 17, 2015)

Glad to see yall got one.

Its actually a lot better than I thought it would be.  For the form factor and the fact you can get rid of the TDP limit the card performs a little beyond expectations.  Considering the performance at 1440p and the OC results, I would not mind one if I was making something in the SFF form factor.  I wish the price was a little lower though, I could almost understand $600 dollar price tag what with the limited OC ability (Unless that changes somehow) and the lack of an AIO while still giving the full powered chip in the form factor.  But at the same price of the Fury X...Its a lot harder of a sell.


----------



## Luka KLLP (Sep 17, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Glad to see yall got one.
> 
> Its actually a lot better than I thought it would be.  For the form factor and the fact you can get rid of the TDP limit the card performs a little beyond expectations.  Considering the performance at 1440p and the OC results, I would not mind one if I was making something in the SFF form factor.  I wish the price was a little lower though, I could almost understand $600 dollar price tag what with the limited OC ability (Unless that changes somehow) and the lack of an AIO while still giving the full powered chip in the form factor.  But at the same price of the Fury X...Its a lot harder of a sell.


Yeah I agree. It isn't the complete disaster I expected it to be  (in fact, it's pretty damn good!) Then again, after the price was announced we already knew this card wouldn't be the game changer for AMD, no matter how great it was gonna be...


----------



## Thunderclap (Sep 17, 2015)

Idk where I saw this info, but apparently AMD is gaining back market share.
With Fury Nano getting overclocked and going toe-to-toe with Titan X on 1440p, I am pleasantly surprised by it.

And with good DX12 performance... huh, we might see nVidia beating a dead horse soon.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 17, 2015)

Thanks for the time and effort on putting such a comprehensive review together. If the cards weren't sent out until Monday, someone was burning the midnight oil.
As for the results, they seem in line with popular opinion and other reviews. Very capable but overpriced and a glaring oversight on QA testing.


Sasqui said:


> So you did get a sample after all?


TPU just had to wait for AMD's NDA* to expire

*Needlessly Delayed Article


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2015)

Glad to see AMD didn't actually intend to permanently deprive TPU of a review sample. 

I'm not surprised that this card has a stupid price. It's the only card in its market segment ie no competition, so AMD are gonna charge top dollar for it and I can't say I blame them.

Looks like a good product, but what's with that bloody coil whine?!  For that price, AMD can afford to fit the very best chokes on the market. Heck, they can probably afford to fit custom made super quiet ones! Dunno what's with this company, they tend to put out great products sometimes, but then bork them with the most idiotic flaws that are so easy to fix. It's almost like they want to sabotage themselves for some reason. Same thing with the missing HDMI 2.0 limiting framerate to 30Hz.

Finally, it's great to see this card given the usual fair and informative TPU review treatment, although delayed and having two cards was a bonus. @W1zzard Ya gonna give us a crossfire review of these?


----------



## Rais (Sep 18, 2015)

I see some questionable statements at beginning.
First of all, Lan PC doen't really need an high performance GPU, because majority of competitive title are somewhat light: LoL, CSGO, ScII, HotS, just to mention some. Anyway, there is something else to consider: many SFF chassis has enough space to house 300mm cards, so what is really the point of this solution at this price?
It can competes with a 980 both in performance and thermal\power, but is priced 100$ higher or more depending on shortages. And this coil whine?

The best idea i've ever seen from AMD, years ahead of NVIDIA, somewhat ruined.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 18, 2015)

Thunderclap said:


> Idk where I saw this info, but apparently AMD is gaining back market share.


What you saw was a very strange article that had some large proviso's attached. Barron's published an opinion based article on how AMD was clawing back market share for Q3 ( FWIW, Q3 doesn't end until 30 September, and the shipped for revenue figures won't be available until some time after that). The hosted piece also specifically referenced the $200 and $400 price points. AMD has the 290X/390X in the latter market segment, while Nvidia doesn't field a model at that MSRP ( strictly AIB custom only). The $200 market segment is the GTX 960 against the R9 380, R9 285, and R9 280X all of which are better performing cards, so no real surprise there. The pseudo-advertising article was clickbait for those who have never understood the phrase " no shit, Sherlock" and think that their Magic Eight Ball really is a mystical scrying orb.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 18, 2015)

9.0 is far too kind for all the faults. But I do appreciate that you guys tested it in sub 1080 resolutions.


----------



## Musaab (Sep 18, 2015)

HBM has a success with R9 Nano much moor than any Fury. maybe AMD messed up with price but this is the cost of 8.9 Billion transistor it does not come cheap but at the same time it is disappointing to see up to date 8,9 Billion transistor chip with fastest memory compared to 1.5 years old 5,2 Billion transistor with the same amount of older and slower type memory. What have the PC Tech companies done in the last tow years. In CPU business it's worst. since Core i7 2600K lunch before 4 years we haven't seen any (real) change in performance. And by the way you should put GTX 970/980/980Ti STRIX or something like from ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE, EVGA, ...,ect because no one buy nVidia's or AMD's reference cards (except when there is no other choice like GTX TITAN and FURY X) so if you want to make this article useful for readers when we go to buy our next VGA Card put real cards because reference cards are not for your readers who followed you through the past 37 paged. And W1zzard thanks for this great review.


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 18, 2015)

Still no HDMI 2.0?  AMD is such a joke


----------



## anubis44 (Sep 18, 2015)

KarymidoN said:


> Awesome review W1zz.
> 
> I believe that after this card AMD is destined for bankruptcy, sorry AMD users (I am one), but it is the sad reality, in terms of competitiveness AMD managed to lose both Intel and for Nvidia.
> Long ago that AMD has not released a product that offers competition, this of course is bad for customers, who can choose to use an AMD product with low performance and a cheaper price (eg processors) or pay more if you want performance and technology (intel processors).



AMD's not going to go bankrupt. Several companies would like their technology, and one of their most prized pieces of intellectual property is their x86 license, along with the rights to the AMD x86-64 cross license AMD allows Intel to use. In the event of bankruptcy, AMD's x86 license vanishes into a puff of smoke, so none of the companies that would like to have it (eg. Microsoft, possibly Apple, Samsung, Sony, Qualcomm, etc. etc.) will let them just go bankrupt. One of them will pounce and buy or merge with AMD first. Maybe nVidia will finally smell the coffee and merge with AMD, too. I think Jen Hsun Huang wanted to merge with AMD back in 2005, but he wanted to be AMD's chairman. Maybe he'll finally get his wish?


----------



## Rowsol (Sep 18, 2015)

That performance per dollar is pathetic.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 18, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> Still no HDMI 2.0?  AMD is such a joke


No more a joke than you or your comments...


Luka KLLP said:


> Yeah I agree. It isn't the complete disaster I expected it to be  (in fact, it's pretty damn good!) Then again, after the price was announced we already knew this card wouldn't be the game changer for AMD, no matter how great it was gonna be...


Indeed, but its just trying to be a premium product in a niche market.


qubit said:


> Glad to see AMD didn't actually intend to permanently deprive TPU of a review sample.
> 
> I'm not surprised that this card has a stupid price. It's the only card in its market segment ie no competition, so AMD are gonna charge top dollar for it and I can't say I blame them.
> 
> ...


Ill read the end of the CFX review, right below the R9 Fury X in terms of performance .


----------



## dwade (Sep 18, 2015)

9.0 huh. Overrated and overpriced.


----------



## SammyHayabuza (Sep 18, 2015)

Before I read the review, I just came to say that I'm glad you got a sample..now on to the review!!!Awesome...


----------



## SNM (Sep 18, 2015)

dwade said:


> 9.0 huh. Overrated and overpriced.


^^ This...apart from that...why people were shouting that R9 nano is better than 980Ti....Even 980Ti is still better in terms of Per/$....


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 18, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> No more a joke than you or your comments...
> 
> Considering my comment was hilarious amd must be the biggest joke in town...........  Oh wait they have been for years.


----------



## nem (Sep 18, 2015)

Dual vapor chamber very nice, only coil whine be little disapointing but some people are repoting have the limit to 60fps helps to keep without coil whine , btw mostly gpus today have some of coil whine just see youtube , mostly the nvidias gpus 970 but even the 980ti have coil whine.. so i think have a good case too could help.. :/


----------



## Folterknecht (Sep 18, 2015)

There is a difference between a little coilwhine above 200 FPS and an army of crickets taking over your PC. Reports of AMD branded crickets are all over the web since the NDA for Nano was liftet, it wasn't only Wizzard who has been attacked. 

14:55


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

Chimes in with all the other reviews.  It performs as expected, which is good but is a noisy little device. I have no requirement for a SFF but if I did, I'd choose a few that allowed standard size cards (case in review does).  I could never buy this over a Fury X though, the SFF PR is lost on me personally given how small the Fiji PCB is anyway.
I know some AMD die hard will provide a list, so I'll go out on a limb and say, how many cases does this specific card fit in, I.e., cases for cards that don't do full length. Remember, some SFF also require half height cards.
Fury X is the better implementation.


----------



## john_ (Sep 18, 2015)

Project Cars is as always hilarious. It should be renamed to Nvidia Cars.

Ryan at PCPerspective says that a retail Nano that he bought didn't had any coil whine. Of course I don't know if someone can trust PCPer. I mean in the past they where in bed with Nvidia BIG time. They might have changed beds lately.

Nice review as always. I can't find the Crossfire numbers. WE DEMAND CROSSFIRE


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

john_ said:


> Project Cars is as always hilarious. It should be renamed to Nvidia Cars.
> 
> Ryan at PCPerspective says that a retail Nano that he bought didn't had any coil whine. Of course I don't know if someone can trust PCPer. I mean in the past they where in bed with Nvidia BIG time. They might have changed beds lately.
> 
> Nice review as always. I can't find the Crossfire numbers. WE DEMAND CROSSFIRE



Crossfire Nano? Hmm, there goes the SFF. There is a Fury X crossfire review in yesterday's (or day before) review round up. Scaling is as expected, 70+%.


----------



## Ubersonic (Sep 18, 2015)

I don't understand the point, it's a less powerful Fury that you can put in a HTPC, but it can't do 4K output to a TV, and it's just as overkill for 1080p as a GTX970 mini but 2x the price...


----------



## john_ (Sep 18, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Crossfire Nano? Hmm, there goes the SFF. There is a Fury X crossfire review in yesterday's (or day before) review round up. Scaling is as expected, 70+%.


Just for fun and also it could give us an idea of a Fury X2.


----------



## Octopuss (Sep 18, 2015)

Something has been puzzling me for months if not longer. Why do you put SO high scores in reviews when there are several, often serious looking, downsides to that particular product? How can Nano get score of 9 and highly recommended, when it's overpriced as hell and then some (especially the whine)?


----------



## Maban (Sep 18, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Something has been puzzling me for months if not longer. Why do you put SO high scores in reviews when there are several, often serious looking, downsides to that particular product? How can Nano get score of 9 and highly recommended, when it's overpriced as hell and then some (especially the whine)?


Can you find a higher performing card that size?


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

john_ said:


> Just for fun and also it could give us an idea of a Fury X2.



@btarnur seemed to hint that the dual Fiji will be Nano based.  It certainly makes sense for power requirements and cooling capacity.
I still want Asus the make the Ares Fury X, full fat Fiji with water block.


----------



## pr0fessor (Sep 18, 2015)

Looking at the conclusion with 9.0 made me laugh. With 9.1 it would be Editors Choice. This is rather looking like an unfair review. Well 9.0 is also a good value. If I had the money by now, I would buy this card right away. The price is high, but good cards are expensive. I really think this card deserves more than a nine.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 18, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> Looking at the conclusion with 9.0 made me laugh. With 9.1 it would be Editors Choice.


Awards are not tied to scores. Without coil noise fail and lower price it would be Editor's Choice.

Go build a high-end sff gaming PC, which card are you going to use?


----------



## pr0fessor (Sep 18, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> Awards are not tied to scores. Without coil noise fail and lower price it would be Editor's Choice.
> 
> Go build a high-end sff gaming PC, which card are you going to use?


I would take definitely take the Nano, but OK, I'm not an expert. Coil noise is annoying, but not that annoying for downgrade this card to an usual or average card.


----------



## buggalugs (Sep 18, 2015)

Looks pretty good. Not having HDMI 2.0 is a disaster for this card......what were they thinking.......Its still a good card though.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Sep 18, 2015)

Nice to see they have somewhat caught up to Maxwell in terms of performance/watt. Really impressive what HBM does at 4k. But yeah, it's disappointingly expensive.

If I was building a high end SFF machine I would be going for a 980 at this point. For NV the really simple response to the Nano would just be a SFF 980, but I'm holding out for pascal, should be a really good jump over maxwell.


----------



## Ebo (Sep 18, 2015)

Actually I dont thin the price is too high, seen in the light that its made for a small amount of buyers in mind with SSF cases, NOT for the masses, you have enough to choose from.

People have a tendency to want max preformance but wont pay the price, well in my mind..get used to it, prices is going one way and thats up with both Pascal and Artic Island using HBM2 on their highend cards. HBM2 will still be a fairly new tech when those cards come out next year and be in small numbers....so if you want the goodies, you have to pay the price.

You choose the product for what* you *is a fair price, just dont blame us thats willing to go above and pay more for the best tech thats out there, thats my 2 cents.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> I would take definitely take the Nano, but OK, I'm not an expert. Coil noise is annoying, but not that annoying for downgrade this card to an usual or average card.



9 isn't a bad score nor does it reflect on it's performance.  It's an overall score and down marking for just bad engineering (coil whine) is very reasonable.  Likewise- the price marks it down.  If you're going to defend the Nano's pricing you'd better think long and hard about how long Nvidia had it in the ass for their pricing.  So the build BoM for Nano must be lower than Fury X?  Performs worse, runs louder, costs more because AMD want to charge more for it (Nvidia style pricing psychology). 
The better AMD seems to get with their (overall) performance, the closer to Nvidia they become in pricing schemes.  Ouch.  Let's hope either Nvidia or AMD outright win the next round, otherwise they'll both stick it to us at a high cost.


----------



## Lionheart (Sep 18, 2015)

Thanks for the review, glad you got a sample.

I see this card more as an air cooled Fury X (obviously down clocked)

This launch could of benefited AMD so much more if they changed a few things for eg. 

- $600 USD for Fury X would make it look more competitive to the GTX 980 Ti @ $650 USD
- Not even bother with the Nano labeling & just call it a Fury X air cooled version, extra 6pin power connector to avoid GPU throttling @ $550 USD
- Normal Fury priced @ $500 USD
- HDMI 2.0 (Seriously did AMD cheap out on this?)
- Devoid of coil whine ( How is this steal a thing, it's just as annoying as lag)

But I guess I have to factor in costs of the Fiji GPU itself, HBM, yields, supply, AMD are desperate for $ Dosh $ & the fact that Lisa Su wanted to change the perception of how ppl view AMD being the cheaper solution, can't blame her really.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 18, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> I would take definitely take the Nano, but OK, I'm not an expert. Coil noise is annoying, but not that annoying for downgrade this card to an usual or average card.


 
Since when is 9 out of 10 "average"?   There are a number of cards, including Nvidia cards in the last year that scored in the 8's.  I thought it was fair based on the noise, lack of HDMI 2.0 and coil whine.  It's the awesome factors it had that brought the score UP to a 9.0.


----------



## P-40E (Sep 18, 2015)

Hopefully the price goes down. I just do not see this selling well at that price. Taking advantage of people that use form factor cases is just wrong. The card is less powerful than the Fury X, So it should not be priced the same as the Fury X.


----------



## Frick (Sep 18, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> Something has been puzzling me for months if not longer. Why do you put SO high scores in reviews when there are several, often serious looking, downsides to that particular product? How can Nano get score of 9 and highly recommended, when it's overpriced as hell and then some (especially the whine)?



It's scoring on the internet, there is no rhyme or reason to anything here.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 18, 2015)

Seriously. Checkout that Performance / $ chart. lol. Who in the right mind will buy this for a normal gaming desktop over the 980 TI for the same price??


----------



## Steevo (Sep 18, 2015)

pr0fessor said:


> I would take definitely take the Nano, but OK, I'm not an expert. Coil noise is annoying, but not that annoying for downgrade this card to an usual or average card.




I moved my computer down the hall to get rid of a little coil whine, and my new fans with an odd timbre to them. Its not noisy at all, but the sound mix during gaming is annoying, and the fans are just off pitch enough that I find it irritating if its right next to me. 

50 foot HDMI cable is worth it.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 18, 2015)

load & peak usage power consumption is quite competitive against the 980Ti but I wouldn't recommend this card for those who are building micro towers or those Steam Box as it's coil whine & poor thermal would be a problem. it's also expensive for something that has the same price as the Fury X & 980Ti. If I were to build another rig, I would opt for the R9 Fury X since it's a full-on watercooled card & performance is as good as the 980Ti across 1440p & 4K games, though the 980Ti is the more appropriate choice of card for high end single GPU system.


----------



## bug (Sep 18, 2015)

newbsandwich said:


> Wow, surprised to see this review on here, didn't think you were getting this card.  Anyway, agree with the general consensus, great card for the SFF, but as with all the latest AMD cards, overpriced.  I just imagine if they cut the price of all their cards, they'd sale a whole lot more.



They can't make a whole lot more. They're binning Fury X to get the chips for the Nano. They need a halo product to keep people talking about AMD, but they don't actually have a lot of these chips readily available (you try cherry picking from a product that pushes 20nm to the limit AND comes with the new HBM technology). Hence the high price.



buggalugs said:


> Looks pretty good. Not having HDMI 2.0 is a disaster for this card......what were they thinking.......Its still a good card though.



You don't actually need HDMI 2.0 just yet. HDMI 1.4 can do 4k@30Hz, which is all you need for movies. The card itself can't actually deliver 60FPS@4k in many titles.
Still at $650 it should come with everything and the kitchen sink.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 18, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> GhostRyder said:
> 
> 
> > GhostRyder said: ↑
> ...


I guess you also do not know how the quotes work on this site either (Since you just put everything in a big quote).


john_ said:


> Project Cars is as always hilarious. It should be renamed to Nvidia Cars.
> 
> Ryan at PCPerspective says that a retail Nano that he bought didn't had any coil whine. Of course I don't know if someone can trust PCPer. I mean in the past they where in bed with Nvidia BIG time. They might have changed beds lately.
> 
> Nice review as always. I can't find the Crossfire numbers. WE DEMAND CROSSFIRE


Well if you want CFX numbers just look at the Fury X CFX since that is going to be pretty much identical clock for clock (With Fury X winning in the OC territory).



Prima.Vera said:


> Seriously. Checkout that Performance / $ chart. lol. Who in the right mind will buy this for a normal gaming desktop over the 980 TI for the same price??


Why would you???  The point is this is not for a normal gaming desktop, its for SFF and small cases were space is limited (Or that you want some extra room).  I mean if you want a normal gaming desktop there is the GTX 980ti, Fury X, Fury Nano, or GTX 980 all waiting around for you.


Ubersonic said:


> I don't understand the point, it's a less powerful Fury that you can put in a HTPC, but it can't do 4K output to a TV, and it's just as overkill for 1080p as a GTX970 mini but 2x the price...


  Well any card at this point in the 970/R9 380X or above range is not going to sweat much at 1080p in this day and age.  Most (High end) cards now are shooting at the 1440p range as the main goal for a smooth experience instead of 1080p.



Lionheart said:


> Thanks for the review, glad you got a sample.
> 
> I see this card more as an air cooled Fury X (obviously down clocked)
> 
> ...


1: Completely agree, at $600 it would be a better alternative including moving everything Fiji down a notch.  Fury seems to be the best overall with its price and area currently.
2: The extra 6 pin would not help much if any.  Its only throttled by software, raising the power limit removes any throttling from what I have seen and allows ever for some overclocking to right at (Little over) Fury X stock levels.
3: Yes
4: Do not see a point to it personally, its not a great standard and the only thing HDMI 2.0 does is allow 4K 60hz at a cost of visual quality.  If its really needed, there are DP to HDMI 2.0 connectors out there that say they will do 60hz.  I have never tried one but I have seen them.  But this is just IMHO.
5: Yea...But all GPU's in this generation are suffering from it unfortunately which has been really annoying.  I really wish they would just up the quality a slight bit all around instead of waiting for custom PCB's to fix it.



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> load & peak usage power consumption is quite competitive against the 980Ti but I wouldn't recommend this card for those who are building micro towers or those Steam Box as it's coil whine & poor thermal would be a problem. it's also expensive for something that has the same price as the Fury X & 980Ti. If I were to build another rig, I would opt for the R9 Fury X since it's a full-on watercooled card & performance is as good as the 980Ti across 1440p & 4K games, though the 980Ti is the more appropriate choice of card for high end single GPU system.


Well generally cases can alleviate some of the coil whine it would be the big problem.  Though I would say with the temps it handles itself beyond well and so far  Ihave not seen one throttle due to temps even in a tiny case.



Ebo said:


> Actually I dont thin the price is too high, seen in the light that its made for a small amount of buyers in mind with SSF cases, NOT for the masses, you have enough to choose from.
> 
> People have a tendency to want max preformance but wont pay the price, well in my mind..get used to it, prices is going one way and thats up with both Pascal and Artic Island using HBM2 on their highend cards. HBM2 will still be a fairly new tech when those cards come out next year and be in small numbers....so if you want the goodies, you have to pay the price.
> 
> You choose the product for what* you *is a fair price, just dont blame us thats willing to go above and pay more for the best tech thats out there, thats my 2 cents.


^ That is true and I agree with you, though I do think we have to be careful at times otherwise we encourage manufacturers to charge ridiculous prices for products.


----------



## DeadSkull (Sep 18, 2015)

Came to read thread comments. Saw a bunch of broke college kids crying about HDMI 2.0, left satisfied.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 18, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Came to read thread comments. Saw a bunch of broke college kids crying about HDMI 2.0, left satisfied.


 
I think you'd be surprised to know the majority of our members are probably in their 30's and 40's, with a wide assortment of job and professions.


----------



## DeadSkull (Sep 18, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> I think you'd be surprised to know the majority of our members are probably in their 30's and 40's, with a wide assortment of job and professions.



Right....I doubt there is more then a dozen here who can thrown down a few grand to be an early HDMI 2.0 4K adopter.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

It's actually quite funny.

I like Fury X - let me just say it.  I do.  I didn't buy one but I like it.  If Fiji does actually romp home in DX12 and DX12 hits far sooner than we thought (beating Maxwell soundly), I'll sell my 980ti and go custom water cooled Fury X (as long as it's not got coil whine).  That's as long as Arctic and Pascal are delayed to late 2016 or early 2017... 

However- all this crap about SFF?  Does anyone even think about it before saying it?  I've been checking some SFF cases online and the fact is many of then fit at least a 10.5" (stock 980ti length, <27cm).  Some fit 12" cards.  Point is, the cases have evolved to fit longer gfx cards.  People are mindlessly repeating the Nano is the best for SFF gaming when that means sweet butt cheeks.

I'm not sure how the psychology works but if I wanted a SFF build, I'd scope out the cases and find my preferred option.  From there I might work down from the expansion size variable.  A lot of the main vendors supply decent space in _very small_ cases for a full standard length gfx card.  I may even think "I want a SFF case - my, that's a beauty - I must have it!"  If i then find it only fits a Nano size card, well hey - Nano it is.  But if it fits a bigger card?  Why would I want to buy a Nano?

It's a philosophically circular proposal - Nano is your SFF choice but many SFF cases fit larger cards, so you want your case to only fit your Nano?  So it's not about SFF but 'poorly designed' SFF?  My personal pref is the BitFenix mini ITX but it even supports a 240mm rad (Fury X anyone?).  Size = 25x40x35cm https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-114-BX&groupid=2362&catid=2279 Or I also like the Silverstone Sugo SG07, supports 12.2" gfx card.  Size 22x19x35cm  https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-222-SV&groupid=2362&catid=2279

Does anyone see what I'm saying?  If you choose a SFF, you then make educated choices and those choices affect your build.  Nano isn't the only SFF choice - that's a very blind thing to say.  And for the Red team - I'd rather put a Fury X in a SFF than a 980ti.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 18, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Right....I doubt there is more then a dozen here who can thrown down a few grand to be an early HDMI 2.0 4K adopter.


 
You're right.  Know why?  Because most people in that age group have cars, credit cards, insurance, utilities, food, a mortgage to pay, kids to raise (VERY expensive), and college tuition to save for in the hope that the kids will go on to do that.


----------



## nem (Sep 18, 2015)

something reminds me this pic


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Right....I doubt there is more then a dozen here who can thrown down a few grand to be an early HDMI 2.0 4K adopter.



But plenty who can afford a $650 graphics card?  Right......


----------



## Uplink10 (Sep 18, 2015)

If they included HDMI they could have included HDMI 2.0. But to be fair DP is the best standard without royalties like HDMI and if the TV does not support DP then better buy the right TV with DP. Let's remember DP 1.2 has been future proofed since 2009 and HDMI 2.0 came out only in 2013 and even then a lot of cards did not include HDMI 2.0. Now be fair when choosing a TV and if there is no DP available it sure is not a good buy.


the54thvoid said:


> But plenty who can afford a $650 graphics card? Right......


A lot of Nvidia graphic cards were priced at $650 in the past and back then people did not bitch so much about a price (not talking about your post) as they do now, remember you can stick this card into a pocket and AMD can't survice by being the budget-oriented seller with top cards having unbelievable low price (290/290X).


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

Uplink10 said:


> A lot of Nvidia graphic cards were priced at $650 in the past and back then people did not bitch so much about a price (not talking about your post) as they do now, remember you can stick this card into a pocket and AMD can't survice by being the budget-oriented seller with top cards having unbelievable low price (290/290X).



I thoroughly respect your post but the phrase



> remember you can stick this card into a pocket



is utterly redundant.  The size of Nano is lost on many SFF cases.  AMD have missed the mark with the Nano.  Fury X (as I keep saying) broke ALL the moulds.  It's smaller and could easily have had air cooling with a marginally smaller TDP.  Nano is a 'false product'.  They created a trio of cards based on nothing other than cooler and tdp. 

Fury X is great - I do like it.  But they could have air cooled it.
Fury is meh.  They didn't need to castrate it but then - what point would the Fury X be?
Nano is without purpose, other than the fact AMD put a bulky water unit on Fury X to make it NOT a SFF card.

Nano isn't magic.  It's a Fury X with a power limiter.  Fury X is the PCB for SFF.  But AMD chose to handicap it's SFF merits by slapping an AIO on it and NOT ALLOWING any partner to modify it.

AMD have conspired to create a false market by denying the partners the ability to customise Fury X.  It's so freaking transparent it hurts.


----------



## pr0fessor (Sep 18, 2015)

Steevo said:


> I moved my computer down the hall to get rid of a little coil whine, and my new fans with an odd timbre to them. Its not noisy at all, but the sound mix during gaming is annoying, and the fans are just off pitch enough that I find it irritating if its right next to me.
> 
> 50 foot HDMI cable is worth it.


Is this the proof that every card will have the coil whine? I thought all cards can have it or not, it's about a luck thing. Just think about the size of the Nano and its performance. Not everyone likes to drive a Jeep or a truck. Here in Switzerland we have a lot of Mini's driving around and the Nano is some kind of this direction. And about HDMI 2.0, I think this is like PCI-Express 3.0. It will be more important 1 or 2 generations later, what is this today good for? Of course it is nice to have, but not needed.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 18, 2015)

bug said:


> You don't actually need HDMI 2.0 just yet. HDMI 1.4 can do 4k@30Hz, which is all you need for movies. The card itself can't actually deliver 60FPS@4k in many titles.


One cannot, sure, but many of us that would buy this card will buy two or more just to get that 60 FPS @ 4K. That's the whole point in using multiple cards; to get performance that is otherwise not possible. So obviously there's no use in using any AMD Fury-based card in Crossfire for 4K gaming using HDMI.

I got money. I want to game on my new 55-inch 4K screen that cost me $1500. What videocard do I chose? There can be only one?


----------



## DeadSkull (Sep 18, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> But plenty who can afford a $650 graphics card?  Right......



And add that sticker price to a 2G tv?  I can see why most people wouldn't complain about this crap and why AMD didn't care to build in hdmi2 into Fiji architecture.


----------



## moproblems99 (Sep 18, 2015)

Not sure what all the fuss about Perf/$ is.  Generally speaking, there is only 1 or two cards that will give you the level of performance you desire so Perf/$ is irrelevant.


----------



## Whilhelm (Sep 18, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Right....I doubt there is more then a dozen here who can thrown down a few grand to be an early HDMI 2.0 4K adopter.




I use a 40" 4k TV as my primary monitor, I paid 500 bucks for it. There are compelling options in this price range that work awesome as monitors so HDMI 2.0 support is a requirement in any high end GPU.

When the Fury cards were announced I just assumed that HDMI 2.0 would be a given since the card is aimed at a 4k market. Not including it is a real issue. I have always been an AMD supporter but when it came time to upgrade I had to switch to Nvidia. I wanted to buy the Fury X but since it wouldn't work with my TV I had to cross it off my list.

As far as the Nano goes, it's a product without a market with a price point that makes you have to consider your options. Is it really necessary to build a PC as small as possible just because you can. I am sure it will start a trend towards smaller graphics cards as more models implement HBM but at this time it is a very big risk coming from AMD.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> And add that sticker price to a 2G tv?  I can see why most people wouldn't complain about this crap and why AMD didn't care to build in hdmi2 into Fiji architecture.



In many ways I think you're right. Some of the reviewers referred to the whole Fiji development as less of a sales chance than a technology promo. Fiji production might never be high enough to make any profit for AMD so perhaps pricing is utterly irrelevant. It was AMD saying, "we did it first" (again). For investors or potential buyers, maybe that's a big enough lure to put capital into a forward thinking but struggling technology company.


----------



## rezagtx (Sep 18, 2015)

amd must think people are crazy as hell! who will spend 650 $ for this ?when we can buy much better graphic cards?
or why they think people must be their lab rats for  their small form factor creations and inovations ??!!i
this card is not good at all it is only worth 400 $ not more - an it is really ugly ! is look like sound card or modem!!


----------



## Dieinafire (Sep 19, 2015)

HDMI 2.0 the way it is meant to be played!


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Sep 20, 2015)

The words do not match that score or Recommended listing.  That said, I always took "Recommended" to be short for "Recommended for the Majority."  If you start giving products with such a niche angle a Recommended just because they're recommended for that tiny group of users, then I think you'll find a LOT of products start earning Recommended.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Sep 20, 2015)

@GhostRyder depends greatly on airflow I guess. If the card really didn't get any hotter & never throttle down, then the cooler is more than enough. A custom waterblock would be even better though...


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 21, 2015)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @GhostRyder depends greatly on airflow I guess. If the card really didn't get any hotter & never throttle down, then the cooler is more than enough. A custom waterblock would be even better though...


Exactly, and in this case though even in SFF form factor with limited airflow the cooler can handle the card even with some OC without sounding like its going to take off.



the54thvoid said:


> I thoroughly respect your post but the phrase
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, its a hard sell but I do see some promise in it.  We (supposedly) will some custom cooler versions of this card and maybe if were lucky some custom PCB variations that give us the Fury X in a different light.  I think if we got the Nano with no power limiter, the same cooler, and a similar VRM setup to the Fury X (Or better) it would have been a very interesting lineup of two cards (Fury X and Fury).  I think that would have made the Fury lineup much more interesting even with its current PCB sizes being smaller than normal.  AMD went with that AIO though on the Fury X to make it seem more premium, but locking down the vendors on it was a foolish decision for people who prefer air cooling or want a cheaper solution.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2015)

good to read the TPU review.

thing is, give it a year for hte price to drop and supply to go up and it will still be a popular card simply because it fits in more systems.

If someone sets up their case airflow to cool the card (120mm fan blowing on the back for example) they could alleviate some of the throttling as well.


----------



## Casecutter (Sep 21, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> So the build BoM for Nano must be lower than Fury X?


 I don't know about that.  Nano's Vapor Chamber Heat-Pipe (VCHP) has a good amount of engineering in it, and was that AMD internal, or did AMD farm it out to someone to design and build?  Sure while VCHP coolers have been done in the past, I don’t recall anything near this compact and on some ways multilayered seeing it cools the VRM’s.  One that comes to mind is what EVGA had on their GTX 680 Classified (>200W) and EVGA charged accordingly. Given the volumes and limited scope of Nano such a cooler cost is probably near or as high as what they got in partnering with Cooler Master to achieve the FuryX AIO water cooler.  I think if we stop and consider that petite VCHP apparatuses handles (175W) is an exploit in and of itself.



P-40E said:


> Taking advantage of people that use form factor cases is just wrong.


Isn't that the norm for most such in ITX and SFF stuff it is a premium market?  the Silverstone Sugo SG02 W1zzard used is $75, and has half the material while offering Silverstone lower shipping, damage, warehousing etc; though cost as much as a fullsize case of similar quality.  M-ITX mobo's have far less components and much less PCB real-estate than a full-ATX, though cost the same or more... are people complaining about those parts?  Why should AMD not have the same ability?



the54thvoid said:


> Point is, the cases have evolved to fit longer gfx cards.


While that is true are there thermal limitations in using a 980Ti that might necessitate more fans/noise?  If say that Silverstone Sugo SG02 can hold a Asus 980Ti Strix will you enjoy its' 0dB fans and be less noisy under gaming, without some extra special fan work above what a Nano can do with?  Is there consideration for the PSU (550 vs. 600) or at least wire looms moving to such a 980Ti, somewhat.

Is Nano everyone's cup of tea... heck no.  Are all builds in some way or another a compromise and trade-offs... always!  This just permits new considerations over what we've had previously. 

One thing is if I got a Nano and it had coil whine it would be back in its box and on the way back!  No card… especially one described as for SFF should leave the manufacturing QA with the level of whine as found with the review sample from AMD, even the Sapphire (retail) with "less pronounced but still audible coil noise" would have it going back.  At $650 SFF (well any card) such noise is just not tolerable, from either side.


----------



## vega22 (Sep 22, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> One cannot, sure, but many of us that would buy this card will buy two or more just to get that 60 FPS @ 4K. That's the whole point in using multiple cards; to get performance that is otherwise not possible. So obviously there's no use in using any AMD Fury-based card in Crossfire for 4K gaming using HDMI.
> 
> I got money. I want to game on my new 55-inch 4K screen that cost me $1500. What videocard do I chose? There can be only one?



none, you still need 2 gpu to get good frames. which will still lag like fuck on your screen as for that price you're only going to get a cheap 55" 4k screen.

one of the best review i have read in a while that w1z but i can't help feeling you didn't want to do that in the end :s

i do find it funny you mention the vrm cooling being good. to my eyes it is the vrm doing all the damage in the thermal vid :s


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 22, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> none, you still need 2 gpu to get good frames. which will still lag like fuck on your screen as for that price you're only going to get a cheap 55" 4k screen.



That's what FuryX2 should be good for.


----------



## bentan77 (Sep 23, 2015)

Is there any chances of making a comparison between Fury X and Nano at the same clocks? (mainly about power consumption)


----------



## Cursed (Sep 23, 2015)

Nice review

Is 36 dB for the noise under load the thing we hear when fan goes to 2050 rpm on video?

I would love it if You could add rpm values to the noise charts pls


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 23, 2015)

Cursed said:


> I would love it if You could add rpm values to the noise charts pls


that's in the works, but not easy, need to read the sound level noise level (rs232!), and somehow get it added to the sensor readings of gpuz


----------



## Cursed (Sep 23, 2015)

I may miss something here, and probably do... but isnt it just reading max rpm value from msi afterburner?


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 23, 2015)

Cursed said:


> I may miss something here, and probably do... but isnt it just reading max rpm value from msi afterburner?


No it's reading live real-time data, while recording, from GPU-Z. 
Oh, you think this is some kind of Afterburner overlay? It's not


----------



## Cursed (Sep 23, 2015)

Oh, your talking about the thing we see in video?

Koz I was just thinkin about adding rpm value here: https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Colorful/iGame_GTX_980_Ti/images/fannoise_load.gif

And Im guessing easiest way would be:

- play the game you play for load test with afterburner on
- read max temp and rpm value for charts
- set gpu to the noise reading rig thing
- use afterburner to set rpm back to what it was at load
- read dB value

At least thats how I understand it... if its not, well.. then its not ;p
Not gonna waste more of your time ;]


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 11, 2016)

Barely months after release and they have dropped the price.... to what it should have been all along.

http://techreport.com/news/29584/amd-slashes-the-r9-nano-price-tag-to-499


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 11, 2016)

Way to bring up an old thread.  And this doesn't even come close to Titan/780.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 11, 2016)

moproblems99 said:


> Way to bring up an old thread.  And this doesn't even come close to Titan/780.



Hey it's not that old, the news is relevant, and frankly I agree with you... those cards no doubt sold a lot better.


----------



## Musaab (Jan 11, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Barely months after release and they have dropped the price.... to what it should have been all along.
> 
> http://techreport.com/news/29584/amd-slashes-the-r9-nano-price-tag-to-499


First it's nice that someone still surfing through old articles and write a comment.
Second this move has two points of concern:
A- how much the card costs AMD? More precise how much AMD will lose for every card been sold?
B- is this move is to sell the stock at AMD's partners storage or AMD will make more chips for this price and notice that this card isn't a cut down but the opposite this is a hand picked Fury X full chip.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 11, 2016)

moproblems99 said:


> Way to bring up an old thread.



There's a news item for this.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-slashes-radeon-r9-nano-price.219140


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 11, 2016)

xorbe said:


> There's a news item for this.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-slashes-radeon-r9-nano-price.219140



Maybe that would have been the appropriate place to reply?


----------



## qubit (Jan 11, 2016)

xorbe said:


> There's a news item for this.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-slashes-radeon-r9-nano-price.219140





moproblems99 said:


> Maybe that would have been the appropriate place to reply?


Look at the timestamp lads before taking a pop at someone. @Fluffmeister  made his post before bta's news post so you can hardly blame him for making that post and he was perfectly ok to do so.


----------



## i7Baby (Jun 6, 2016)

Prices stayed high here in Australia till recently. I got a Nano for $687aud ($500usd) from PLE.

Mainly because its good at video rendering - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU15/1231 (wonder how the gtx1080 compares?)

But also because with a 750W EVGA G2 PSU, I can also run two of them.

And it's about at a GTX980 level for gaming - https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano_CrossFire/15.html - especially for 4K
which I believe we'll all be heading towards


----------



## Game Happy (Jun 8, 2016)

Am I missing something here? I was really considering buying this card but the point of having a card that cannot output at 1440p or even 4k at acceptable refresh rates is kind of redundant for the cards capability. I mean I am still using a 7970 GHz card & was looking around for a card that can do hdmi 2.0 or higher refresh rates via display port  than my current cards 30hz at 1440p and 4k at 30hz but yeah what good is rendering over 60 fps if this r9 nano can't even display or refresh at 60hz. Just a comlpete mute or void situation of owning a new card like the nano and having a 4k monitor or tv that can do hdmi 2.0 at 4k 60hz. Thanks AMD for your half baked product but I would have to pass thanks. This makes peoples look towards Nvidia for a better solution for a few more dollars.


----------



## i7Baby (Jun 8, 2016)

https://au.msi.com/Graphics-card/R9-Nano-4G.html#hero-specification - Nanos also have 3 x Display Ports each of which will do 4K to 60Hz


----------



## xorbe (Jun 9, 2016)

Right but my brand new 4k tv doesn't have DP ports.  I'm driving it with gtx 960 over hdmi for 60 Hz.  Unfortunate if a nice card like the Nano didn't support that, seems counter-productive.


----------



## i7Baby (Jun 9, 2016)

I wouldn't think a GTX960 would drive 4K at all. Let alone at 60Hz.

You can always run a Display Port to HDMI adapter eg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...y_port_to_hdmi_adapter-_-86-944-081-_-Product


----------



## Game Happy (Jun 9, 2016)

yeah but how effective is this adaptor for display port 1.2 to hdmi 2.0? would I get the 60hz I would desire at 1440p or 4k? I'm just not willing to take the gamble with non certified cables...


----------



## xorbe (Jun 9, 2016)

i7Baby said:


> I wouldn't think a GTX960 would drive 4K at all. Let alone at 60Hz.



It does.  HTPC, not gaming.


----------

