AMD R9 Nano Review

[krusha03]

Hey guys i know lots of people want to see a review of the Nano and I just came across one on a Dutch website. The graphs are pretty self explanatory and you can use google translate for the text. You can find the review link below:

http://tweakers.net/reviews/4164/1/amd-r9-nano-krachtpatser-op-itx-formaat-inleiding.html
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6265/amd-radeon-r9-nano-review-een-titan-voor-mitx

 

[Luka KLLP]

nl.hardware.info also has one, conclusion is pretty much the same. I think their title is perfect: "a Titan for mITX"...

 

[Frick]

Sweclockers has one as well, and that site is pretty good.

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/21045-amd-radeon-r9-nano

 

[krusha03]

nl.hardware.info also has one, conclusion is pretty much the same. I think their title is perfect: "a Titan for mITX"...

Ah you are right and it's more comprehensive. Added to the OP

 

[Frick]

In short, it should have been a cheap, smallish, frugal card with 290x speeds IMO. This is a good card, no question, but the niche is small and probably a bit misdirected.

 

[krusha03]

In short, it should have been a cheap, smallish, frugal card with 290x speeds IMO. This is a good card, no question, but the niche is small and probably a bit misdirected.

Yeah it is basically more expensive than a GTX 980, a bit slower and uses a bit more power. So unless you can't fit a 980 in your system and you do need 980 level of performance, this card is not really worth while.

 

[EarthDog]

Ananad got one...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review

 

[Frick]

It is a very good looking thing though. Just look at it!

 

[GhostRyder]

Yeah it is basically more expensive than a GTX 980, a bit slower and uses a bit more power. So unless you can't fit a 980 in your system and you do need 980 level of performance, this card is not really worth while.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1061-amd-radeon-r9-nano/

Techspot put up their review as well, though they put it above the GTX 980 at 1440p+ by 6% but other list it right at or right below at 1080p. The problem is the thing has a TDP throttle in place which keeps the clocks around 900mhz. That however can be alleviated it seems but setting the power limit higher which allows it to stay at a constant 1000mhz and still keeps its temps and noise in check. At that point its basically nipping at the heels of the R9 Fury X. So if we can get a little bit of overclocking out of it (50mhz), we can then just say its a more efficient smaller R9 Fury X.

Not a bad card especially considering what the worry was about it, I was actually worried it would be way to locked down for any settings to be changeable.

 

[RCoon]

Fury X is only 1.5" larger than the nano. The nano's supposedly niche market can be filled by the Fury X. I know plenty of ITX cases that can not only fit the 120mm radiator that the Fury X comes with, but most of them can fit full size cards in anyway.

Nano has worse cooling, costs the same, less performance, is louder, and neither of them have HDMI 2.0, making their use as a 4K@60FPS TV HTPC completely useless. It has lower power limits, hindering its overclocking ability, and no AIB is currently allowed to slap on an awesome sensible cooler with better VRM's and inductors. Add to that that it looks totally stupid in a full sized tower case, I literally don't understand what market this is for.

The nano makes zero sense to me, other than as a fashion accessory. I think there was a reason many sites didn't get a nano, and that's because of their honesty. Some of the reviews I've seen have hinted at negativity, but have not written anything downright honest about the severity of the downsides to the nano. To me it feels like AMD sent samples on the agreement that nothing severely negative was written. I look at every review's performance figures (the factual bits), and what I glean from them is a world apart from the things I'm seeing in these conclusions.

Why anyone would buy this over the Fury X is beyond me.

EDIT: Oh, and clocking this at "up to 1000mhz" is absolutely hilarious when you see the actual frequency figures

 

[a_ump]

so what i'm seeing here, is 3 flagship cards, which oddly enough the nano does come out one top in 1 or 2? of those benchmarks between the 3.....So what the hell is the point in investing in a Fury X, Fury and Nano. they shoulda jsut done the Fury X and the Nano.

 

[Disparia]

Very nice, though we already knew that once the rumors of it being the same chip were truthified. Didn't want it any less, but did affect my ability to buy one. Will probably just buy that mini R9-380 now, possibly a GTX-960.

 

[RejZoR]

Fury X is only 1.5" larger than the nano. The nano's supposedly niche market can be filled by the Fury X. I know plenty of ITX cases that can not only fit the 120mm radiator that the Fury X comes with, but most of them can fit full size cards in anyway.

Nano has worse cooling, costs the same, less performance, is louder, and neither of them have HDMI 2.0, making their use as a 4K@60FPS TV HTPC completely useless. It has lower power limits, hindering its overclocking ability, and no AIB is currently allowed to slap on an awesome sensible cooler with better VRM's and inductors. Add to that that it looks totally stupid in a full sized tower case, I literally don't understand what market this is for.

The nano makes zero sense to me, other than as a fashion accessory. I think there was a reason many sites didn't get a nano, and that's because of their honesty. Some of the reviews I've seen have hinted at negativity, but have not written anything downright honest about the severity of the downsides to the nano. To me it feels like AMD sent samples on the agreement that nothing severely negative was written. I look at every review's performance figures (the factual bits), and what I glean from them is a world apart from the things I'm seeing in these conclusions.

Why anyone would buy this over the Fury X is beyond me.

EDIT: Oh, and clocking this at "up to 1000mhz" is absolutely hilarious when you see the actual frequency figures

It's the whole hting with large sized components in small spot. For example it was impossible for me to fit a tower CPU cooler in miniATX case, but I could easily fit in AiO set with plenty of space left because I just offset the mass somewhere else. It's the same with Fury X. The card is nearly identical, offseting the radiator somewhere is a much easier task even in tiny cases.

 

[64K]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1061-amd-radeon-r9-nano/

Techspot put up their review as well, though they put it above the GTX 980 at 1440p+ by 6% but other list it right at or right below at 1080p. The problem is the thing has a TDP throttle in place which keeps the clocks around 900mhz. That however can be alleviated it seems but setting the power limit higher which allows it to stay at a constant 1000mhz and still keeps its temps and noise in check. At that point its basically nipping at the heels of the R9 Fury X. So if we can get a little bit of overclocking out of it (50mhz), we can then just say its a more efficient smaller R9 Fury X.

Even if you set the power limit higher to reach 1000 MHz and overclock the Nano by 50 MHz you still can't say it's as fast as a Fury X because the Fury X can be overclocked too. The sample sent here could be pushed up to 1150 MHz.

 

[GhostRyder]

Even if you set the power limit higher to reach 1000 MHz and overclock the Nano by 50 MHz you still can't say it's as fast as a Fury X because the Fury X can be overclocked too. The sample sent here could be pushed up to 1150 MHz.

I was more referencing at stock speeds Overclocked the Fury X is going to be faster, I just meant you could match the Fury X's 1050mhz hopefully in the smaller, fan cooler form factor.

 

[EarthDog]

Well, where is newtekie? I have an 'I told you so' stored up for the guy.

Even at the paltry clocks it can run at it handily beats the 290x/390x across all resos by 10-15%+

 

[GhostRyder]

Well, where is newtekie? I have an 'I told you so' stored up for the guy.

Even at the paltry clocks it can run at it handily beats the 290x/390x across all resos by 10-15%+

Yea, but what is nice (I really thought this was going to be locked down tight) you can increase the power limit which allows it to run full time at the 1000mhz threshold and it still manages to run in the designated temp range. Its definitely not nearly as bad as I was fearing it might be and actually has more potential than I initially thought.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yea, but what is nice (I really thought this was going to be locked down tight) you can increase the power limit which allows it to run full time at the 1000mhz threshold and it still manages to run in the designated temp range. Its definitely not nearly as bad as I was fearing it might be and actually has more potential than I initially thought.

Eh? What potential. Sure if you want to run a gfx card in a case that only fits a Nano then the Nano is a good choice, but seriously, as RCoon said, most SFF cases are designed to fit full length cards. I'd rather have a 980, 980ti, Fury or Fury X over a Nano. Given it's pricing as well, it's a complete anomaly of a card. Hell, would the Nano fan fit on the Fury X? Custom mod someone?

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

Looks microscopic... in terms of muscle GPU, it's hampered greatly coz of the PCB size & power limit.

 

[GhostRyder]

Eh? What potential. Sure if you want to run a gfx card in a case that only fits a Nano then the Nano is a good choice, but seriously, as RCoon said, most SFF cases are designed to fit full length cards. I'd rather have a 980, 980ti, Fury or Fury X over a Nano. Given it's pricing as well, it's a complete anomaly of a card. Hell, would the Nano fan fit on the Fury X? Custom mod someone?

Well, I agree as I would probably pick a 980ti as well. I mostly meant its not as held back as we initially were concerned what with that fan and the TDP limit (Which can be overridden very easily it seems in CCC). Its cool for those putting something in a Tiny case which is the point they seem to be hitting with this. While there are many MITX cases that will fit a full length card, some have the misfortune of having something removed in order to achieve it (IE HDD brackets).

Not a card for me, but I am not after the tiniest machine I can make (Then again I doubt I would pick it even then as I would probably rather start with the higher end ones that are not that much bigger as is).

Looks microscopic... in terms of muscle GPU, it's hampered greatly coz of the PCB size & power limit.

Power limit can be overridden, its essentially the same as a Fury X once you adjust that.,

 

[the54thvoid]

something removed in order to achieve it (IE HDD brackets)

What's an HDD..... Is that like a prehistoric SSD? I mean now we're moving to M2..... NVMe FTW.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@GhostRyder I see but kinda pointless to manual OC in order to get as close as the Fury X... with the possibility of overheating & probably damaging the VRM chips as the stock cooler isn't designed in a way to dissipate heat faster than most aftermarket coolers.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

side note: If there's a custom waterblock for the Nano, it would be better BUT still isn't worth your money in order to cool it down even further simply to beat the Fury X or 980Ti as you need to spend a few hundred dollars more, which comes up to nearly $800 or so. Not exactly wallet & electric bill friendly...

 

[GhostRyder]

What's an HDD..... Is that like a prehistoric SSD? I mean now we're moving to M2..... NVMe FTW.

Its this device from the dark ages of gaming when we would get up and grab a snack while waiting for the machine to load

@GhostRyder I see but kinda pointless to manual OC in order to get as close as the Fury X... with the possibility of overheating & probably damaging the VRM chips as the stock cooler isn't designed in a way to dissipate heat faster than most aftermarket coolers.

Just adjusting the TDP limit seems to be ok for the cooler on it. Just turning the power limit up does not increase the temps much according to techspot.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

minor clock bumps yes. Extreme ones... better ready a CO2 fire extinguisher.