Read more.Quote:
The small-form-factor king emerges.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The small-form-factor king emerges.
As expected - drop the clocks, lower voltage and you get a card that shades the 390X with very good power characteristics.
Shame about the form factor and price though.
I think the price was predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
What form factor would you have preferred then? With lower TDP it shouldn't need to be big. I suppose a single slot but longer card would allow more to be crammed into a full sized box.
I'd like a normal sized card with two quiet fans and cheaper build materials with a price that matches it's performance rather than paying a premium for compactness.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
The thing that worries me about the nano is the lack of aib customisation. if you gave this permission to gigabyte, sapphire, msi or the others i wonder how quiet they could make it with their custom air solutions :O the lockdown on design and features is worrying when it has the potential to be even better!
Looks very good. Just behind a GXT980Ti once overclocked is nothing to be sniffed at.
Looks like Scary Jim was dead on with this prediction.
Thanks :) I'd've expected a slightly cheaper price, but that space between the GTX980 and the Fury X was an obvious target for performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jigger
Sadly, of course, while it will give you better performance than a GTX 980 (unless you're mad on TW: Rome II) and draw less power than a GTX980, the ~ £100 premium is going to put most people off. Clearly not meant to be a volume product.
Now, if they can do this within 175W, where's the dual-Nano based card? ;)
Agreed. They've already made a huge improvement over previous gen (290x) cards in cooling efficiency, delivering better cooling at much lower noise, and have a much more efficient chip to boot. If they can keep it cooler, quieter and faster as it is, there's clearly no need to make it bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I do think the popularity of this card will depend on its actual street price at retail, because it's a cherry picked full-fat Fury X chip. With much better power characteristics and overclocking capabilities, I think this could be popular for overclockers with watercooling. Even if it's no cheaper than a Fury X in the end, it's still cherry picked silicon.
The lack of HDMI 2.0 is all that's preventing me from upgrading tbh, As soon as AMD release a card with it I'll be getting myself a 4k TV and replacing my 7970, until then I'll be sticking to the ol' 37" 1080p LG.
"Truly mini-ITX in stature.."
I truly question how much of a market there is for a high-performance mini-ITX graphics card, as most of the gaming-focused mini-ITX cases can fit a full-length card anyway.
If you took this fully-enabled GPU and short PCB, but used a longer blower cooler with the fan unobstucted by the PCB that was able to take in air from both/either side, then it would make for a very nice card for both single-card and Crossfire usage. That to me seems a far better use of the space efficient design, and it's the one option AMD have chosen not to produce.
I don't think they are aiming at mass market, not with that price. I see this as a technology demonstrator to try and throw off the image of the company that needs massive heatsinks and fans running like the clappers. I don't think it was a fair image before, but with this card there clearly isn't anywhere to even put a big heatsink, and the performance and temps are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael H
If it scales down though, then how small can next year's mid range cards be!
Seeing what they've done with this, I can only assume a lack of HBM stopped them mirroring the architecture and layout throughout the 300-series: There's no way you can tell me it wouldn't be technically possible to produce 3k-shader versions with 3GB of HBM and 2k shader versions with 2GB of HBM that would've performed well in their respective segments....Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Has anywhere actually reviewed this card in a mini ITX set-up? I'd be happy to be wrong but this reads to me as small and nicely engineered / designed in and of itself but still drawing enough power and producing enough heat under full load to mean that you'd have to use one of the larger mini ITX cases that can use a full ATX PSU and which probably has the room for the Fury X cooler to be mounted making the whole thing seem rather pointless...
...though if you have stacks of cash to burn and want a quieter monster PC maybe 2 in crossfire would make some sense?
(Edits ahoy)
And to answer my own question, pcper.com's review actually uses a mini ITX case (and a small one at that):
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...d-Temperatures
The key bit being here:
http://www.pcper.com/image/view/6127...n=node%2F63763
http://www.pcper.com/files/review/20...x1440_OFPS.png
Hot hardware does the same:
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-r...-review?page=4
I've run some numbers in a SilverStone Sugo SG05 with both the Nano and GTX 970 mITX. Will add them soon.
It's an impressive little card and seems to live up to the power/performance claims. But I do agree that its price, though understandable when compared to Fury X due to binning, is probably high enough to push it into a niche category. Having said that, if AMD can sell all they're able to produce at that price like they have been with the other Fiji cards then it probably makes business sense until production ramps up.
After having a quick read around it looks like PowerTune is finally doing a good job of managing power consumption which is good news now and for future products.
I have little interest in this specific card but I like the idea of binning for a sweet spot on the power/performance curve.. which is sorta what laptop chips do but expect to see some more of this in the future.
Finally a card from AMD that is power efficient and performs immeasurably great for its price, and this helps all those small cases and I believe there might be a steam box featuring this card in the upcoming few months...
Silly question, Why isn't this a 8GB Card with HBM taking up less space ?
8GB isn't currently feasible for technical reasons to do with the HBM memory. It's really a non-issue though aside from losing a marketing bullet point.
Well they say it's not feasible but then why didn't they start with 1gb or 2gb on a card. Just smells like a marketing ploy to magically have 8gb HBM on the 'Next Gen' to me in all honesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I don't follow? HBM is only used on Fiji, a large high-end GPU so they're obviously going to give it a larger amount of VRAM.
Unless they used the rumoured dual-link HBM stacking which wasn't ready, or went with a double-wide bus which would have added significantly to cost and die size (therefore probably reducing shader count as they're up against the reticle size already), >4GB of HBM1 is not feasible. That's pretty well-understood.
If 8GB was easily achieveable for negligible cost then I imagine they would have done it, if for nothing else other than marketing and avoiding the predicable complaints when comparing it to the 390X and 980Ti memory amounts.
Pity it isn't low-profile....(I know it is short but it is too talk for many mini-itx HTPC cases!)
Quick question - what's the point of cards like this when one can buy a bigger card? Do the Nano cards take a perofrmance hit or lose the ability to OC ?
Too bad about the coil whine, otherwise this would have been the ultra-compact ITX champ hands down.
Wonder if AMD will Allow PowerColor to make a Devil 13 or ASUS to bring the Ares IV with two of these in one form factor.
The concept micro-PC that was announced at the same time as the Fury series had a dual-Fiji graphics card, so there are already reference boards out there, and the only thing I can see stopping a Fury X2 would be a lack of dies/interposers preventing a worthwhile production run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyruz
With a single card at 175W TDP and both AMD and nvidia playing free and loose with the PCIe specs to push cards to 375W and beyond, you could easily get two of these on a single board and even have them clock slightly higher than the Nano....
Tarinder - is it possible to run an extended gaming test in an SG05 over 30 minutes to see if the Nano and the mini-ITX GTX970 throttles or not??
The same reason the Fury X isn't an 8GB card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jace007