AMD Radeon R9 Nano official specifications slide leaks

[HEXUS]

4096 stream processors confirmed, compute performance of 8.19TFLOPs touted.

Read more.

[ValkyrieTsukiko]

hmm, just essentially a smaller vanilla fury then with less OC potential? i wonder what sort of fansink the vendors will attach and price range for it :-) wonder how this sits in crossfire then :-D

[lumireleon]

before we move on, I hope the GPU temps will be below 70c at full load 4K/UHD

[Platinum]

So more powerful than a R9 Fury at 100w less? wtf, if its cheaper as well ill be a little upset at AMD.

That said I do love my Fury, great card and runs pretty much everything maxed out

[ValkyrieTsukiko]

So more powerful than a R9 Fury at 100w less? wtf, if its cheaper as well ill be a little upset at AMD.

That said I do love my Fury, great card and runs pretty much everything maxed out

why would it be faster than a vanilla fury? :< slide says up to 1000mhz core, and fury is 1000mhz.
less power fed to it, it is curious to see almost same speed at less wattage.. something has to be different, does that just simply mean it can't overclock as easily as the fury vanilla (heh, funny since overclocking on the vanilla is still not fully unlocked ^^;; ) or is the slide incorrect? hmm

[LemmingOverlord]

Could I just point out that these specs match the ones published by online retailer Geizhals.eu over 2 months ago?

https://geizhals.eu/amd-radeon-r9-nano-a1282819.html

[kalniel]

That's 1.365 TFLOPs per inch, fact fans.

What a pointless metric. At least quote it in fractions of olympic sized swimming pools or something relevant

Anyway, so if true, that would point to basically a Fury X with the power slider set way down. Which is impressive, but can't be that cheap.

I'd like one in non-compact packaging please.

[Platinum]

why would it be faster than a vanilla fury? :< slide says up to 1000mhz core, and fury is 1000mhz.
less power fed to it, it is curious to see almost same speed at less wattage.. something has to be different, does that just simply mean it can't overclock as easily as the fury vanilla (heh, funny since overclocking on the vanilla is still not fully unlocked ^^;; ) or is the slide incorrect? hmm

More cores, and the slide lists 8.19 tflops vs 7.16tflops for the vanilla card, specs say it should easily beat the vanilla fury.

If thats the case it makes me wonder what the point of the vanilla fury is and why it needs so much juice? really bad chips perhaps?

[kalniel]

More cores, and the slide lists 8.19 tflops vs 7.16tflops for the vanilla card, specs say it should easily beat the vanilla fury.

If thats the case it makes me wonder what the point of the vanilla fury is and why it needs so much juice? really bad chips perhaps?

Think of mobile chips. Just because there's a theoretical boost clock speed, doesn't mean they will run at it. The Fury is likely going to run at much higher clock speeds than the Nano in the real world, ie the Nano will throttle for power reasons, as if you'd set the power slider way down in CCC.

[Platinum]

Looking forward to seeing the reviews, I guess these are cream of the crop chips, if thats the case I cant imagine this will be a cheap card.

[Platinum]

Saying that if the Fury X and the Nano are both full fat chips them the vanilla cards must be the worst chips going, failed cores and probably needing more juice to power the rest.

Still they are good value for money in my mind (I may retract this statement tomorrow)

Either way I hope this is a success for AMD and they can produce enough to meet demands, they do need the cash atm and Nvidia need the competition (No one wants them being the only supplier of discrete cards)

[marshalex]

Based on the specs listed I can't see this being that much cheaper than the standard Fury. May even be more if there's a shortage

[Platinum]

If its cheaper there will be some unhappy Fury owners , I expect it to be around the same if not a little more.

[scaryjim]

... If thats the case it makes me wonder what the point of the vanilla fury is and why it needs so much juice? really bad chips perhaps?

I'd guess that it's more than Nano are the top bin chips: They'll do 1GHz on a much lower voltage. Fury X are presumably the standard bin, and Fury the lower bin - so not really bad, but not quite up to scratch.

of course, if Nano does use top bin chips, it's not going to be cheap (although the smaller board and lower power requirements - i.e. less robust VRMs required - should reduce the overall BOM). I'm going to stick to my original prediction of it being bang in the middle of the R9 390X and Fury X in terms of both performance and price. How does that compare to the Fury again?

[sykobee]

I wasn't expecting 1GHz cores for this.

I don't think this is going to be cheap, if it really can sustain that.

I suspect that 1GHz is a Turbo, from around 800MHz. Or these are cream-of-the-crop Fijis and this isn't going to be cheap.

[ValkyrieTsukiko]

hmm, maybe, this suggests this is meant to sit at same level as vanilla. same or higher price, maaaaybe same speed, less OC-potential but smaller size.. you are paying essentially for the smaller form factor (fps per inch! hah) . 1 day til we find out it seems :-)