AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review

[junkeymonkey]

heres the review with a few extra cards in it to compare with toms review ?? same board but different cpu and memory speed

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,14.html

 

[computertech82]

300 dollar difference in a card that performs slightly slow, makes the amd NOT the choice to get.

 

[RedJaron]

This card manages 30 FPS in most titles at 4K which isn't "playable" for most gamers. When paired against the 970 Mini in 1080p they are just about neck and neck.

I am far from being a NVIDIA fanboy but... I guess I don't see the point in this product if it is $300 more expensive than the 970 Mini and cannot handle 4K with at least 60 FPS.

Because 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 aren't the only resolutions out there. People with 2560x1080, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, 3440x1440, and 5760x1080 triple displays will get better performance out of the Nano than the 970.

 

[jimmysmitty]

This card manages 30 FPS in most titles at 4K which isn't "playable" for most gamers. When paired against the 970 Mini in 1080p they are just about neck and neck.

I am far from being a NVIDIA fanboy but... I guess I don't see the point in this product if it is $300 more expensive than the 970 Mini and cannot handle 4K with at least 60 FPS.

Because 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 aren't the only resolutions out there. People with 2560x1080, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, 3440x1440, and 5760x1080 triple displays will get better performance out of the Nano than the 970.

So far Nano is looking to act like Fury and Fury X. It doesn't do so well at 1080p or 1440p but excels at 4K.

 

[Deuce65]

What a terrible card. For anyone wondering why AMD is in such dire financial straights, it's crap like this, putting out products for which there is absolutely no market whatsoever for.
Really, what gamer is looking to spare no expense and play at 4k, but wants to do so at 30fps and with no HDMI 2.0 in one of the rare cases to small to fit a full sized card?
I get that it's small, and that is nice and all, but most itx cases will fit a full length card anyway so what difference does it make? Anyone willing to pay 650 is going to get the vastly superior 980ti.

 

[bloodroses75]

For those who say "there's no point for this card since mini-itx can hold full size cards", what about those who have water cooling on their CPU as well? A full size card will not fit in this setup since the water cooling block is too large to put on the CPU size of the case with an adequate size fan.

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/DFzypg

 

[FormatC]

@bloodroses75:
Good point

 

[kuzzenjoe]

Ouch! $650. I was hoping for $500 at the most. Many ITX chassis now a days can take 12-13" long cards and some can even handle cards with 120mm and larger radiators. My favorite ITX chassis right now are the Lian-Li PC-TU100 and TU200. Sadly, it looks the TU200 is being discontinued, but I own one as wells as a TU100s. I had hopes of running a Fury Nano in my TU100, but at that price, I am better served sticking with my GTX 970 mini. Plus with both Nvidia and AMD both planning to use (on their next-gen cards) stacked memory and GPU interposer designs on newer/smaller manufacturing tech, there are certain to be new cards in the next year or so, that will fit into same niche as the Nano for less $$ and likely better performance.

 

[Nlg01]

I love it. With every new build I have tried to go smaller, down to the most recent Tt core V1 for my son. I recently have taken a job that sticks me in a hotel 4 nights a week and would love to build a system that I could throw in my suitcase and game on the go, and hook up at home and deliver a good experience at QHD or on my 4k projector. I recently picked up a Zbox 860 at a good price and while it's impressive given its size it's merely functional at FHD. I won't drop $650 on this, but the fact that AMD understands the possibilities is exciting.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Small, fast and pricey — that’s how AMD wants to establish a whole new product category. But does the Radeon R9 Nano have the performance to back up its price tag?

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review : Read more

3.5gb of "USABLE" memory on 970 mini? Does this card come with 3.5GB instead of 4GB? Doesn't it have 512mb of slower stuff just like the regular 970 that can be used for stuff that isn't needed much? Or are you saying it can't be USED on this card? Is it disabled?

If they actually sell it with 3.5GB I guess I missed the memo. If not, you are acting like it isn't there when it is. You should call it a 4GB card if it IS one, especially when it takes out an 8GB card on occasion (not to mention many situations 8GB would come in handy appear to not be playable anyway) in resolutions where playable on both. Maybe you could say something if we saw the card taking hits due to this tech, but that isn't the case, so why mention it at all? It seems you're just taking a CHEAP shot at NV's card for nothing. Did the scores on the 970's reviews change after we heard it was using cross-bar tech with 512mb lower speed? Nope. Seems you should just drop the BS until it REALLY has some effect that makes it worth mentioning Nobody has found that "corner case" in ages.

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

the crude reality is that less than 5% who visit Toms Hardware are gaming on 1440p and less than 1% can afford 4K. I am watching how easily some people speak about 4K here, 4K there, 980ti SLI, omg Titan, but the market is so small that it is really irelevant.
Priced right or not, AMD is going to sell every Nano, like nVidia is going to sell every TitanX.
Everyone is "bashing" AMD for the latest flagship (the full fiji chip), but nobody is speaking how much of a performance jump was the 980ti over the 780ti. I cant remember in the last decade a GPU manufacturer to make a jump like this. It is similar to what Intel did with Sandy Bridge.

 

[FormatC]

3.5gb of "USABLE" memory on 970 mini?

Simply monitor the games and take a look at the memory usage. The problem is, that the game mostly finds a 4GB card inside and this 970 will run at 3.5 GB in an kind of overflow, because the dramatically increased latency is not awaited. The result is well-known and you'll get a short stutter (or more). I've tried it with 970 and 980 and it is enough to play with the settings in GTA V. Simply increase the memory usage step-by-step. You'll get the moment, if the 970 begins to stutter and the 980 not. Ok, this is a constructed example but a good demonstration. And to be honest, it is not only a memory thing (ROPs etc.) and the driver by himself is trying to use the first, faster memory blocks.

You ever read a bashing review or comment from me about and against 970? Never! But it must be allowed to talk about facts and the reality. It is really off-topic to discuss about NV's kind of communication and the data in the sheets (they are really wrong until today).

And please read the conclusion again. You'll find also a conclusion for GTX 970 Mini. If you read it carefully and emotionless, you will understand my more or less diplomatic point of view. It is a very good card for the money, no question. But it also has some disadvantages.

I'm not a fanboy, I'm simply to old for this shit

 

[RedJaron]

So far Nano is looking to act like Fury and Fury X. It doesn't do so well at 1080p or 1440p but excels at 4K.

I'm not sure what benchmarks you're looking at. The scores I see show a 1-3fps gap at 1080p jump to more than 6fps once you reach 1440p. That may not seem like much, but when you're getting 67fps instead of 60fps, that's a 10% improvement and a much nicer place to be to use v-sync. Yes, 4K is where you'll see pronounced separation, but 1440 and triple 1080 is where it starts to pull away.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I love the increasing trend of Mini ITX GPUs. I find it strange that cards below 970 are even still made with 2 fans... it's good to see AMD jumping on the trend too. But this price is just ludicrous. Seriously, $650? I got my Asus 970 Mini for $350 (not running Mini ITX build yet but will at some point, so why get a dual-fan card) and by all benchmarks posted in this article, the Nano is NOT two times faster than the 970 Mini. And, like some already said, no one is anyhow going to run 4K from a Mini ITX rig (and the Nano can't even do it smoothly), this is an epic pricing failure. Slash it to $400 and then we'll talk.

 

[Tzn]

I always go for low power and small factor when i build, this is the future slim components low power.

 

[Guest]

i didn't expect it perform this good. i was pleasantly surprised.

 

[dorsai]

The R9 Nano cards interest me because I want to see one with a custom water-block that will let it run at full speed all the time and maintain it's small form factor...I for one am tired of huge video cards that test the limits of a PCI-E slots weight holding abilities and require metal backing plates. I'd prefer my next card as small and powerful as possible and Nano is the only game in town right now...

 

[dorsai]

I suppose if you absolutely must pack the most power into the smallest case, than so be it. But even then, even the smallest cases seem to have at least one 120mm vent where you could sick the radiator of the Fury X and have a better, cooler solution for the same money. Assuming you could buy one of those, which realistically, you can't right now either.. Just my two cents. I got a 290x and freesync, I'm sitting this round out unless high end prices come way down. But I predict that the next full cycle will be a bigger step up than this one was. We should actually get that die size decrease and maybe 8gb of HBM will be cost effective by then.

The X fails to meet the same lower power requirements as the Nano...this is much more important in the Nano's small case target audience...not just due to heat but also to available power supplies in true small form factor PC's. Hands down the Nano is a better idea than a regular X for a small case.

 

[jimmysmitty]

For those who say "there's no point for this card since mini-itx can hold full size cards", what about those who have water cooling on their CPU as well? A full size card will not fit in this setup since the water cooling block is too large to put on the CPU size of the case with an adequate size fan.

https://pcpartpicker.com/b/DFzypg

http://www.corsair.com/en-us/obsidian-series-250d-mini-itx-pc-case

There are others but that case supports a full length GPU and up to a H100i. As I said this GPU is only good if you specifically pick a case that does not support full sized GPUs but it is not the end all be all for mITX. Personally the Corsair 250D is nice, small and can fit a better GPU plus better water cooling.

So far Nano is looking to act like Fury and Fury X. It doesn't do so well at 1080p or 1440p but excels at 4K.

I'm not sure what benchmarks you're looking at. The scores I see show a 1-3fps gap at 1080p jump to more than 6fps once you reach 1440p. That may not seem like much, but when you're getting 67fps instead of 60fps, that's a 10% improvement and a much nicer place to be to use v-sync. Yes, 4K is where you'll see pronounced separation, but 1440 and triple 1080 is where it starts to pull away.

As I said, 1080 and 1440 are ok. I never mentioned Eyefinity (3x1080P) because I consider that above 1080P since there are more pixels on the screen.

My point, this GPU is not the best for 4K gaming and there really still is no 100% 4K gaming single GPU out yet.

The R9 Nano cards interest me because I want to see one with a custom water-block that will let it run at full speed all the time and maintain it's small form factor...I for one am tired of huge video cards that test the limits of a PCI-E slots weight holding abilities and require metal backing plates. I'd prefer my next card as small and powerful as possible and Nano is the only game in town right now...

So you want to turn the Nano into a Fury X? Because that is essentially what it is just not water cooler. Add on a water cooler and it is a Fury X.

 

[Atom Symbol]

R9 Nano: 4096 SP, 1 GHz, 512 GB/s => x+5 FPS, price y+$220
R9 390X: 2816 SP, 1.05 GHz, 384 GB/s => x FPS, price y

+35% computational power => +5 FPS

 

[Achoo22]

A huge waste of money. By the time you finish a build around this grotesquely priced pig, you end up spending more than you would to build a dedicated Steam streamer + a front-end for EVERY TV in the house!

 

[asdfasdf119]

In the DirectX 12 comparison graph for "Average CPU Calls Per Frame", the chart range goes from 15000-20000 for the first two graphs, but suddenly changes to 18000-20000 in the last graph. The data points used in all three of the graphs are very similar and this change in the graph range wasn't necessary.

It's things like this that make readers accuse Tom's as biased (however untrue the accusation may be).

Changing the scale range of the graphics like this wasn't necessary.

 

[CaptainTom]

I suppose if you absolutely must pack the most power into the smallest case, than so be it.

That is exactly the point. It is the same point as Nvidia's Titan X. It is like 10% stronger than the Fury X, but costs almost twice as much. Why? Because you can't fit another single card into the same space and be stronger.

 

[FormatC]

Changing the scale range of the graphics like this wasn't necessary.

Say this Microsoft please

I'll fix it later with a manual inserted range value for this axis.

I'm really not biased. Each time I must read that I like Nivida or AMD or Intel or whatever, depending at the tested product. This is funny and more as stupid, because I'm NOT schizophrenic. Or is it?

Edit: Charts fixed

 

[Math Geek]

the word "objective" has entirely been lost on our world. no one can imagine you have any sort of objectivity in you since they themselves don't understand the concept.

for fun i went back and read some comments on the 970 itx articles here and did not see any of the same comments as here. no "why bother, full size cards fit in hybrid small cases anyway" or "this is a product no one asked for" or any of the nonsense here. nothing but happy, "wow the future looks bright for small builds" and "thanks nvidia you're the best *gush*"

just seems so weird that one small card was greeted with a parade and medals of honor, yet a smaller, more powerful card was met with pitchforks and angry mobs. it's almost like there is a double standard and bias at work here....... almost......not sure if the writer or if the reader is the biased one?? but seems to be some bias somewhere in the mix.....