Monday, August 24th 2015

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Nears Launch, 50% Higher Performance per Watt over Fury X

by
btarunr
 Discuss (106 Comments)
AMD's ultra-compact graphics card based on its "Fiji" silicon, the Radeon R9 Nano (or R9 Fury-Nano), is nearing its late-August/early-September launch. At its most recent "Hot Chips" presentation, AMD put out more interesting numbers related to the card. To begin with, it lives up to the promise of being faster than the R9 290X, at nearly half its power draw. The R9 Nano has 90% higher performance/Watt over the R9 290X. More importantly, it has about 50% higher performance/Watt over the company's current flagship single-GPU product, the Radeon R9 Fury X. With these performance figures, the R9 Nano will be targeted at compact gaming-PC builds that are capable of 1440p gaming.
Source: Golem.de

Related News

Add your own comment

106 Comments on AMD Radeon R9 Nano Nears Launch, 50% Higher Performance per Watt over Fury X

#26
RejZoR
Basically, R9 Nano is what R9-390X should be in the first place...
Posted on Reply
#27
Sony Xperia S
RejZoRBasically, R9 Nano is what R9-390X should be in the first place...
With a die shrink?
ensabrenoir..........wow the day is finally here when having a small graphics card dose not negatively effect your e-peen status......and there is an universal "this is gonna be cool" sentiment for AMD.............there is hope yet for man........
I detect an AMD hater - all non-AMD components?

What "impresses" me in quite bad way is how negative the most opinions are.
If you don't learn to appreciate even the little (of course not now because NANO will be a wonderful product) AMD gives you, in the future you will appreciate monopolies by nvidia and intel and skyrocketing prices. It's your choice.
Posted on Reply
#28
okidna
geon2k2Also I don't know where you see that part with significantly faster than 290x, they mentioned it will be faster ... not significantly faster.
They (Lisa Su, CEO of AMD) made the claim during the announcement event. Watch this, around 1:50 mark :


"...significantly more performance than R9 290X..."
Posted on Reply
#29
the54thvoid
Intoxicated Moderator
Sony xperia, I think you misread ensabenoir's post. He's saying you can now have a powerful gfx card in a small form. He is saying its a good thing.
Posted on Reply
#30
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
That first slide btarunr posted is explained in the second slide:
AMDTesting conducted by AMD engineering on the AMD Radeon R9 290X GPU vs. the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X GPU. Measured performance and power on Far Cry 4. System Configuration: Core i7-5960X (3001 MHz), AMD Catalyst 15.20 Beta.
About 5% faster than 290X, 5% slower than 390X, and 90%+ less power than both.

What should be noted is that this was likely tested on Windows 8.1, not 10, and Far Cry 4 is not a DirectX 12 game. It'll be interesting to see how the three cards compared in DX12.
Posted on Reply
#31
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
FordGT90ConceptThat first slide btarunr posted is explained in the second slide:

About 5% faster than 290X, 5% slower than 390X, and 90%+ less power than both.

What should be noted is that this was likely tested on Windows 8.1, not 10, and Far Cry 4 is not a DirectX 12 game. It'll be interesting to see how the three cards compared in DX12.
Farcry 4 at what resolution? At framerates that low, it must be 4k because I get better numbers in surround on Farcry 4. We know that the Fury series likes higher resolutions but I'm wondering if it's actually slower at 1080p versus Hawaii/Grenada. :confused:

Edit: The source states that it was 4k performance that was tested. That's a sure fire sign that Nano very well might be worse at 1080p than the 290X in terms of performance...
Posted on Reply
#32
Lionheart
Jesus christ negativity galore in here! Any whoo I'm curious to see what this card can do...
Posted on Reply
#33
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
LionheartJesus christ negativity galore in here! Any whoo I'm curious to see what this card can do...
...and what do you expect? It's not like AMD hasn't over-hyped stuff in the past.
Posted on Reply
#34
Dieinafire
LionheartJesus christ negativity galore in here! Any whoo I'm curious to see what this card can do...
I don't know what your reading. This is the most positive stuff I read on amd in months
Posted on Reply
#35
BadIronTree
I will wait for the next version Fury 2.0 :D
Posted on Reply
#36
buggalugs
DieinafireI don't know what your reading. This is the most positive stuff I read on amd in month
He is talking about the same handful of users here that pounce on any AMD related thread and write negative comments,
Posted on Reply
#37
Dieinafire
buggalugsHe is talking about the same handful of users here that pounce on any AMD related thread and write negative comments,
They only do that because amd is vastly better
Posted on Reply
#38
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
DieinafireThey only do that because amd is vastly better
I have a 390 and had 6870s before that and a 4850 before that. I like AMD but I don't think they're vastly better. I personally nail them on PR stuff because of what they've "claimed" in the past. I'm just not convinced that it will live up to scrutiny. We'll see but, 5% faster than the 290X at 4k isn't exactly a good sign considering Fiji doesn't seem to do as well at lower resolutions. With that said, don't say stuff like the quote above because people are going to scream "OMG FANBOY!" AMD has plenty wrong with them and it's absurd to ignore that.
Posted on Reply
#39
Crap Daddy
As we got used lately, AMD is about to launch a competitive product which unfortunately comes late, in low volumes, at the wrong price and is unnecessarily over-hyped. This should have been the card to take on the GTX970 at $350, instead in terms of performance it's the 390X again after 2 months. It is a total mess and people should stop wondering why Nvidia is releasing the GTX 950 at the price they do, we are witnessing a totally unbalanced market and NV is becoming the Intel of discrete GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#40
GhostRyder
Well, it will be interesting to see none the less. Here's hoping its a cool card!
Posted on Reply
#41
Disparia
Cool, looking forward to the Nano.
Posted on Reply
#42
64K
Crap DaddyAs we got used lately, AMD is about to launch a competitive product which unfortunately comes late, in low volumes, at the wrong price and is unnecessarily over-hyped. This should have been the card to take on the GTX970 at $350, instead in terms of performance it's the 390X again after 2 months. It is a total mess and people should stop wondering why Nvidia is releasing the GTX 950 at the price they do, we are witnessing a totally unbalanced market and NV is becoming the Intel of discrete GPUs.
This is the problem. Nvidia lacks competition. It was obvious when they released the GTX 680 as a high end GPU for $500 because it was a little faster than AMD's high end GPU the HD 7970. The GTX 680 was really a mid range GPU and the high end Kepler was the 780. Nvidia has continued this course with the 970/980.

AMD can't compete with Intel or Nvidia on R&D and we, the consumers, are going to pay for it in terms of price and performance.
Posted on Reply
#43
ensabrenoir
Sony Xperia SWith a die shrink?



I detect an AMD hater - all non-AMD components?

What "impresses" me in quite bad way is how negative the most opinions are.
If you don't learn to appreciate even the little (of course not now because NANO will be a wonderful product) AMD gives you, in the future you will appreciate monopolies by nvidia and intel and skyrocketing prices. It's your choice.
.....lets see first vid card....vision tek .....something Amd based, then went onto a MSI 5670 then to HIS 6870 then to HIS 6870's in xfire still use a 7850 in one of my rigs so no..... went from a Cosmos II to a SGO5 and now to two node 304(one black one white) and 2 804's. ( I have an itx idiction- two matx builds couldn't break it) Totally jones-ing for this card. Saw a vid somewhere about a Fractal core 500 itx.....sooooooooooo gonna feed the adiction
Posted on Reply
#44
Fx
FordGT90ConceptIt'll be interesting to see how the three cards compared in DX12.
That is a good point. Those figures are more than likely invalid for many gamers who have already switched to W10 or will be soon.
Posted on Reply
#45
moproblems99
My point still stands from a few threads ago: Less than 20% is not significantly faster. Less than 10% is barely faster. Especially considering the fury line has had no OC potential. I am so glad I did not wait for this to come out. The only way this card isn't a total flop is if the price is about $300-$350, and I don't see that happening. This is going to fall in somewhere north of $400.
Posted on Reply
#46
Phobia9651
I just do not understand what the product placement is going to be for the Nano. One way or another it sounds like it is going to compete with AMD's own GPU's, since they already have a competitor for both the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 with the 390 and 390X (although they are both outmatched).
Posted on Reply
#47
Steevo
Does W1zz have one yet? No? Then its all marketing hype.

Numbers matter.
Posted on Reply
#48
moproblems99
Yeah but even AMD's own slides show they pretty much contradict their own marketing hype....
Posted on Reply
#49
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FordGT90ConceptSo it still looks like it is slower than 390X. If "Hawaii" is 290X, Nano looks about 5% faster. 390X is about 10% faster than 290X, no?
Man, I'm trying to remember where someone already said the Nano would fall between the 290X and 390X...where was that?
Posted on Reply
#50
Lionheart
Aquinus...and what do you expect? It's not like AMD hasn't over-hyped stuff in the past.
I get the extreme dislike of AMD's PR & overhyped BS but the constant negativity just keeps growing.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 26th, 2024 03:16 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts