AMD Radeon R9 Nano Coming Sooner Than You Think?

[Casecutter]

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

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

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

 

[Basard]

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

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

 

[Sihastru]

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

 

[RejZoR]

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

 

[HumanSmoke]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mistral]

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

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

 

[librin.so.1]

TFW the card's plugged into an Intel board there

Spoiler

 

[GhostRyder]

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

 

[AsRock]

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

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

 

[EpicShweetness]

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

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

 

[lastcalaveras]

that's not how to write the date in australia

 

[EarthDog]

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

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

 

[Fluffmeister]

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

Bring on the reviews.

 

[nem]

Really looks impresive i can wait to know more about Nano

 

[newtekie1]

No external power?

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

 

[arbiter]

No external power?

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

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

 

[Basard]

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

 

[newtekie1]

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

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

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

Yes.

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

I'm guess GTX970 level of performance.

 

[EarthDog]

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

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

 

[Sempron Guy]

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

 

[Caring1]

So will it beat a 390X?

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

 

[Caring1]

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

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

Look at the asterisk in the corner.

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

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

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

 

[gaximodo]

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

 

[arbiter]

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

Can't pull 190watts from PCI-e

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

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

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

they made the claim it was during the fury announcement.

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

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

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