AMD Radeon R9 Nano official specifications slide leaks

[Platinum]

Cant wait to see the reviews though, looks like a stonking card and could help AMD loads, This with a 6700k in a ITX case would be a beast.

[staffsMike]

Cant wait to see the reviews though, looks like a stonking card and could help AMD loads, This with a 6700k in a ITX case would be a beast.

That is sort of my problem with this. All the itx cases I would consider based on gaming requirements be it air or water cooled will house a full size graphics cards. Top of my list are both from Silverstone, the SG13B and the RVZ02 once its released.

I'm struggling to think of a case that actually needs this card and I find it hard to believe that anyone will release one because of it...

For AMDs sake I hope it is priced well but I think its clear where it will fit in performance wise and thus the price will not be attractive. I hope I am wrong though.

[watercooled]

I agree that 1000MHz is probably more of a boost clock and it may not be able to sustain that depending on workload. So we might see it perform similarly to the Fury X in some games, but fall behind in others where it's forced to throttle.

It does leave the question of third party coolers, if AIBs are allowed to use them. Considering the smaller PCB and VRM, there are likely power limits in place rather than just thermal ones, but depending on binning it's possible there's some headroom.

[zulm]

Radeon R9 Nano will have the same price as the Radeon R9 Fury X, selling at $649 US

wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-unleashed-649-fastest-miniitx-card-full-fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/

[Platinum]

Might have shot themselves in the foot there then, seems a little expensive for a card that is not as fast as a Fury X

[watercooled]

Yeah, seems like they're aiming at a pretty niche market for it. The Fury (non-X) still looks like the go-to Fiji card TBH.

[ValkyrieTsukiko]

maybe, slightly slower than fury but significantly smaller and single fan cooled. furyx prices do seem a bit too steep for it maaaybe. yup, vanilla is prob the best of the furys batch in terms of cost, size, noise and power.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Might have shot themselves in the foot there then, seems a little expensive for a card that is not as fast as a Fury X

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9564/a...september-10th

According to AMD the card should generally sustain clockspeeds around 900MHZ and boost in less intensive times to around 1GHZ. So the,Fury X should be around 10% to 15% faster overall,so it will be close to an R9 Fury but in a mini-ITX form factor.

Looking at the latest TPU figures in their GTX950 reviews,it should place it overall faster than a GTX980 it appears:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/M...Gaming/30.html

However,I think AMD should have priced this closer to £400ish,or not more than £450 at the most,and thats taking into account the smaller form factor when compared to the GTX980 and the "newness" tax.

Having said that it is one of the few graphics cards I have been excited about for a few years,the other being the mini-ITX GTX970. Shame its way above what I would be willing to spend.

[staffsMike]

[url]

Having said that it is one of the few graphics cards I have been excited about for a few years,the other being the mini-ITX GTX970. Shame its way above what I would be willing to spend.

I felt the same way until an hour ago.

[DanceswithUnix]

Well AMD must have plenty of sales data from the existing cards by now to know where to fit these in. It may be disappointing to many, but I am sure it will be maximising the profits that AMD can make out of the product.