Thursday, September 10th 2015

XFX Radeon R9 Nano Starts Selling

by
btarunr
 Discuss (20 Comments)
AMD's Radeon R9 Nano graphics card, started selling on Amazon. The listing confirms the card's US $649.99 pricing. The card being sold is XFX branded, but as AMD's "co-flagship" product, there likely won't be any custom-design adaptations of this chip. The USP of the R9 Nano is to offer the highest possible performance for SFF gaming desktops. It has a nearly identical specifications sheet to that of the Radeon R9 Fury X, but with slightly lower clocks, and a far more conservative power-management system, which reduces its typical board power rating compared to the R9 Fury X by 100W, down to 175W. The first orders on Amazon should begin shipping after the 13th of September.

Edit: Sapphire's R9 Nano is also listed, at $649, too.

Related News

Add your own comment

20 Comments on XFX Radeon R9 Nano Starts Selling

#1
SNM
btarunrthere likely won't be any custom-design adaptations of this chip
So no groomed version from MSi or Asus....and Seems it is not a international release...did not see listing for the same on any online shopping cart....
Posted on Reply
#2
Darksoviet
Maybe TPU could buy one for testing...:(
Posted on Reply
#3
john_
Both $649 cards out of stock. Prices from $761 to $872. I guess some are taking advantage of shortages to make a few extra hunderd dollars. Worst case scenario they will sell the cards in one or two months at the MSRP. Until then, people who are not patient, will pay for not being able to control themselves.
Posted on Reply
#4
Jack1n
DarksovietMaybe TPU could buy one for testing...:(
No need to really, this a throttled Fury-X with Air cooling, it will perform significantly less then the Fury-X and will consume significantly less power because of its lower speed and lower cooling solution, might have been a good alternative to the Fury X at 550$, but at 650$ i dont see a point to this card.
Posted on Reply
#5
deemon
Best case scenario - all the stock gets sold and AMD earns actually something.
Worst case scenario - there wasn't much to sell in the first place due to low yields or whatever... because AMD didn't have enough samples even for reviewers. Also becomes more like a collectors item...
Jack1nNo need to really, this a throttled Fury-X with Air cooling, it will perform significantly less then the Fury-X and will consume significantly less power because of its lower speed and lower cooling solution, might have been a good alternative to the Fury X at 550$, but at 650$ i dont see a point to this card.
Only point is really small ITX cases and ITX build. Price is indeed a bit too much imho.

BUT there is this but part. WHAT THE EFF IS WITH THE POWER CABLE PLACEMENT on all the pictures I have seen? that effectively renders this hyped 6" card into 6.5"-7" card that is not really so small anymore. About same length as the GTX 970 mini cards we have seen. But clunkier, as on some cases you need to inserts the power cable into the card before inserting the card to PCIe slot.
Posted on Reply
#6
john_
deemonBUT there is this but part. WHAT THE EFF IS WITH THE POWER CABLE PLACEMENT on all the pictures I have seen? that effectively renders this hyped 6" card into 6.5"-7" card that is not really so small anymore. About same length as the GTX 970 mini cards we have seen. But clunkier, as on some cases you need to inserts the power cable into the card before inserting the card to PCIe slot.
Posted on Reply
#7
RCoon
An online retailer I spoke to has only sold 4 Fury X's since release. I doubt Nano's will sell to many people.
Posted on Reply
#8
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
@XFXSupport

How about arranging a sample for review by the site or does AMD_ROY yank your corporate chain

Thanks in anticipation of a reply
Posted on Reply
#9
Ja.KooLit
meh. too pricey. although lets see for review
Posted on Reply
#10
Dany
night.foxmeh. too pricey. although lets see for review





Posted on Reply
#11
TheinsanegamerN
deemonBest case scenario - all the stock gets sold and AMD earns actually something.
Worst case scenario - there wasn't much to sell in the first place due to low yields or whatever... because AMD didn't have enough samples even for reviewers. Also becomes more like a collectors item...



Only point is really small ITX cases and ITX build. Price is indeed a bit too much imho.

BUT there is this but part. WHAT THE EFF IS WITH THE POWER CABLE PLACEMENT on all the pictures I have seen? that effectively renders this hyped 6" card into 6.5"-7" card that is not really so small anymore. About same length as the GTX 970 mini cards we have seen. But clunkier, as on some cases you need to inserts the power cable into the card before inserting the card to PCIe slot.
I know of 3 cases that require the use of such a small card. Two of them need the cable facing backwards, just like how the fury nano does it. They dont have the height to use a sideways connector. The in-win bk23 is a great example, as it cannot use the mini 970 due to the sideways connector. Most other mini itx cases can hold full size 980s. That sideways-facing connector modern cards use is a PITA.
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
Or how about if the card came with that adapter cable pre-attached from factory? So you can connect it from back or the side...
Posted on Reply
#13
GhostRyder
night.foxmeh. too pricey. although lets see for review
The reviews I have seen put it at stock right below a Fury by a few %. However, you can increase the power limit and that drops any throttle which then puts it nipping at the heels of the Fury X. At that point, its a Fury X minus 50mhz which may get alleviated if the overclocking software will allow it.

I doubt a ton of these are going to sell, they definitely are more efficient which means the binning process must be extremely high.
Posted on Reply
#14
XFXSupport
dorsetknob@XFXSupport

How about arranging a sample for review by the site or does AMD_ROY yank your corporate chain

Thanks in anticipation of a reply
Actually we haven't sent out any review samples yet. AMD doesn't restrict us from doing so, however its their reference build and normally we leave it up to them. When we redesign it and launch the XFX version, then I expect to see some samples sent out.

Mark @ XFX
Posted on Reply
#15
the54thvoid
Intoxicated Moderator
XFXSupportActually we haven't sent out any review samples yet. AMD doesn't restrict us from doing so, however its their reference build and normally we leave it up to them. When we redesign it and launch the XFX version, then I expect to see some samples sent out.

Mark @ XFX
If you glue small small plastic 'gems' to the shroud - you could call it "XFX R9 Nano Crystal", that would be a custom one, then you could send it over tomorrow. :D
Posted on Reply
#16
uuuaaaaaa
XFXSupportActually we haven't sent out any review samples yet. AMD doesn't restrict us from doing so, however its their reference build and normally we leave it up to them. When we redesign it and launch the XFX version, then I expect to see some samples sent out.

Mark @ XFX
So this means that there will be custom built R9 Nano cards!
Posted on Reply
#17
buggalugs
Jack1nNo need to really, this a throttled Fury-X with Air cooling, it will perform significantly less then the Fury-X and will consume significantly less power because of its lower speed and lower cooling solution, might have been a good alternative to the Fury X at 550$, but at 650$ i dont see a point to this card.
Well looks like you're completely wrong. The nano performs within like 4 % of Fury and 10% of Fury X. In most games its only a couple of FPS difference between fury cards. Overclocking the nano puts it on par with furyX.

Its the best performance you can get in a small form factor. Its $650 now, but this is new technology. HBM was expensive to develop and with low supply the price is up there but they will sell. When production ramps up prices will fall. I dont think its that expensive for a 4K level card anyway. Nvidia has their expensive proprietary stuff like Gsync, at least HBM will benefit us all.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dany
buggalugsWell looks like you're completely wrong. The nano performs within like 4 % of Fury and 10% of Fury X. In most games its only a couple of FPS difference between fury cards. Overclocking the nano puts it on par with furyX.

Its the best performance you can get in a small form factor. Its $650 now, but this is new technology. HBM was expensive to develop and with low supply the price is up there but they will sell. When production ramps up prices will fall. I dont think its that expensive for a 4K level card anyway. Nvidia has their expensive proprietary stuff like Gsync, at least HBM will benefit us all.
I couldn't agree with you more !
Posted on Reply
#19
xorbe
I hope TPU gets a card to review one way or another. The TPU charts are the best.
Posted on Reply
#20
Jack1n
buggalugsWell looks like you're completely wrong. The nano performs within like 4 % of Fury and 10% of Fury X. In most games its only a couple of FPS difference between fury cards. Overclocking the nano puts it on par with furyX.

Its the best performance you can get in a small form factor. Its $650 now, but this is new technology. HBM was expensive to develop and with low supply the price is up there but they will sell. When production ramps up prices will fall. I dont think its that expensive for a 4K level card anyway. Nvidia has their expensive proprietary stuff like Gsync, at least HBM will benefit us all.
If you overclock it then you lose the power efficiency edge, and while i admit that the power saving is impressive with just a software modification, the same can be done with the fury X, so this card is only really good for small builds, for any thing else i would still go with the fury(or better yet a 980ti).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jun 4th, 2024 06:01 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts