AMD’s R9 Nano Just Got More Interesting With Big Price Drop

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Well at 1080p and 1440p this card (both in price and performance now) places right at or around the 980.
With this price drop, at 4k the 390x is a whole 100 dollars cheaper for 10% less performance.
This card is in a very odd place (taking into consideration small form factors)
 
It's in a better place (no I don't mean it like that). It's still niche for Mini ITX builds, but now SFF builders are only charged a small premium for the size.

If the 970 didn't come in fun size, this would be a no-brainer for your tiny-as-possible living room Occulus rig.

p.s. Can we get some Gsync/freesync support for HMD's and TV's?
 

kcarbotte

Contributing Writer
Editor
Mar 24, 2015
1,994
2
11,785
0


You aren't considering power draw though.
The Nano's peak draw is 175w, which is a lot less than both of the options you just named.
It is still a niche product, but it caters to a group that very much exists.
 

Blas

Distinguished
May 18, 2007
728
6
19,665
269
Does anybody know how this card performs when liquid-cooled? I understand it's main disadvantage compared to the full-blown Fury X is the power circuitry, but maybe watercooling it can help get Fury X performance at some $150 less?
 
I don't think AMD needed to cut the price that much, however it is a positive for consumers. It takes a card in the $620+ range down to the $450 range. This puts some pressure on Nividia, since at that price it may start ending up in regular desktop rigs not just mini builds.
 

iPanda

Reputable
Mar 25, 2015
87
0
4,640
2
So... if I don't overclock this card, it would be just fine in a normal rig. doesn't seem to have a big power draw so how it won't overheat much then right? Just trying to keep my options open for a midtower/fulltower build soon. Always stuck with Nvidia but perhaps I should chop that up for one PC.
 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
845
8
18,995
2
The nano is still a strange part. But Tue price drop almost negates the cost of a water block.
Slap a ID Cooler Hunter Duet in a rig with this guy. :D
Or a nzxt adaptor and any 120/140mm closed loop. And some heatsinks for the VRMs. Which imho would be something a board maker would skimp on since this is a lower tdp part.
 

Gurbo

Reputable
Apr 30, 2015
24
0
4,520
1
Nope , not interesting enough ... This card Right price is $400 . for $500 I prefer GTX 980
Well, luckily now it's just that, preference. A tiny bit more performance, reduced TDP and a funny shape for a top-end card for a bit more money makes them really good direct competitors. Pure green vs red, with no one getting the clear short end of the stick.
The Nano might hurt a bit in the custom PCB and easy to get cooling solutions side, sadly, but if you're going for a non-reference the cost advantage reverses and if you OC the 980 to get the performance advantage, the money you can save in a PSU might also add up to a nice amount.
I'd love to see a head to head comparison of the two right now, with OC headroom and power consumption taken into account.
 

chicofehr

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2012
538
0
18,990
2
Hoping the price actually goes down. AMD cards seem to be inflated above the MSRP because of the lack of supply. Too bad the Canadian dollar is so low now as this will just make up for that and it will still be expensive for us up north.
 

kcarbotte

Contributing Writer
Editor
Mar 24, 2015
1,994
2
11,785
0


The card is still limited in power draw, but the biggest hold back of the Nano is thermal throttling. While I haven't had the chance to test out a liquid cooled Nano (or any Nano for that matter), the way it is designed it should have plenty of extra performance when its kept cooler.
 

mrmez

Splendid
People talking about the 980 or 390x etc...
The only point to buying this card it to build a fast mini ITX system.
If you don't want this, the next best card in a 970 AFAIK, which the Nano will smash.
 

kcarbotte

Contributing Writer
Editor
Mar 24, 2015
1,994
2
11,785
0


pretty much nailed it there.
it's made for a very specific customer in mind.
 

loki1944

Honorable
Oct 31, 2013
1,665
2
12,460
211
Well at 1080p and 1440p this card (both in price and performance now) places right at or around the 980.
With this price drop, at 4k the 390x is a whole 100 dollars cheaper for 10% less performance.
This card is in a very odd place (taking into consideration small form factors)
Well at 1080p and 1440p this card (both in price and performance now) places right at or around the 980.
With this price drop, at 4k the 390x is a whole 100 dollars cheaper for 10% less performance.
This card is in a very odd place (taking into consideration small form factors)
I slapped an MSI Gaming 390X for $350 into my mini-ITX; no way I would even consider the Nano at $500.
 

loki1944

Honorable
Oct 31, 2013
1,665
2
12,460
211


You aren't considering power draw though.
The Nano's peak draw is 175w, which is a lot less than both of the options you just named.
It is still a niche product, but it caters to a group that very much exists.
My 390X with an i5 4440 only draws ~450W under load, being at 327W instead or whatever doesn't make $150 more attractive to me.
 

mrmez

Splendid


How do you fit a 390x in a mini ITX case??

The only reason you pay the price, is because fastest (by a significant margin) mini ITX card.
Also helps to have 123w less heat to get rid of. Not so easy in a confined space.

AMD have made 3 different cards for 3 VERY different uses. If you don't need a tiny card, buy the Fury/X.
 

loki1944

Honorable
Oct 31, 2013
1,665
2
12,460
211


390X fits in plenty of cases to include the 380T and Raven, and still better bang for buck considering how close it is in performance, often 1.5-9FPS @1440pand even beating the Nano in DAI http://www.anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/8

Considering hardcop questioned the value of a Fury non-x over a 390X due to a 10% gap between the two it's hardly surprising the nano isn't much better.
 

Haravikk

Honorable
Sep 14, 2013
317
0
10,790
1
My 390X with an i5 4440 only draws ~450W under load, being at 327W instead or whatever doesn't make $150 more attractive to me.
How big is that system? The market for the Nano is in small form factor systems, i.e- Mini-ITX cases that don't take full-sized graphics cards. Many also require the use of SFX PSUs (some will take ATX ones but won't have much room for cooling), and those have only recently pushed passed 500W, most of the best deals still seem to be around 450W, so AMD has targeted its power draw accordingly.

It's a great card; a bit more than I'd ideally want to spend on a small Mini-ITX system though, but I'm now seriously considering it as the performance difference to other small cards is huge.
 
"At $499, the Nano will be in the sights of a whole new class of buyer."
That class obviously doesn't include me. I would NEVER drop that kind of cash on a video card. In 3 years it will be worth $80 on ebay. A small drop in performance and you can save hundreds with lesser cards. I'd rather get a 390, 390x or GTX 970.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY