Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 29

Thread: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    31,709
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2,070 times in 719 posts

    AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    The small-form-factor king emerges.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,775
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked
    3,293 times in 2,651 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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.

  3. #3
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,363
    Thanks
    715
    Thanked
    1,411 times in 1,193 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    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.

    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.

  4. #4
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,775
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked
    3,293 times in 2,651 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    I think the price was predictable.

    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.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,061
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked
    39 times in 38 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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.

  7. Received thanks from:

    scaryjim (10-09-2015)

  8. #7
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by jigger View Post
    ... 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.

    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?

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    15 times in 10 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Kingdom O Fife
    Posts
    288
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    15 times in 13 posts
    • zaph0d's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI X570-A Pro
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
      • Memory:
      • 48GB - 2X 32GB and 2X 16GB at 3200
      • Storage:
      • 480GB NVME (OS) 2TB 8 Drive sas Raid0 (Games)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Geforce 1070
      • PSU:
      • 1000W Coolermaster
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-343B (Original Model)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2X 55" Samsung 4k tv's
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 500Mb

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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.

  11. #10
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    "Truly mini-ITX in stature.."

  12. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    11 times in 9 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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.

  13. #12
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,363
    Thanks
    715
    Thanked
    1,411 times in 1,193 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H View Post
    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.

    If it scales down though, then how small can next year's mid range cards be!

  14. #13
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    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....

  15. #14
    bored out of my tiny mind malfunction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Lurking
    Posts
    3,923
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked
    187 times in 163 posts
    • malfunction's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte G1.Sniper (with daft heatsinks and annoying Killer NIC)
      • CPU:
      • Xeon X5670 (6 core LGA 1366) @ 4.4GHz
      • Memory:
      • 48GB DDR3 1600 (6 * 8GB)
      • Storage:
      • 1TB 840 Evo + 1TB 850 Evo
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 290X
      • PSU:
      • Antec True Power New 750W
      • Case:
      • Cooltek W2
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2715H

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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



    Hot hardware does the same:

    http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-r...-review?page=4
    Last edited by malfunction; 10-09-2015 at 05:17 PM.

  16. Received thanks from:

    kalniel (10-09-2015),watercooled (10-09-2015)

  17. #15
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked
    411 times in 217 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    I've run some numbers in a SilverStone Sugo SG05 with both the Nano and GTX 970 mITX. Will add them soon.

  18. Received thanks from:

    malfunction (10-09-2015),scaryjim (11-09-2015),watercooled (10-09-2015)

  19. #16
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,460
    Thanks
    1,539
    Thanked
    1,024 times in 868 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Nano

    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •