Fury Nano, biggest bang in smallest package.. FPS/inch baby!

[tviceman]

I gotta give AMD some major props for some of the things they've done lately. First they made water-cooling standard for their single GPU flagship, then they've created a powerful reference mITX card. I don't care what anyone says, if powerful cards can be fit into smaller packages I'm all in. Fury Nano is shaping up to be an amazing card. The problem I see it having is that it won't be priced competitively. As others are saying, it's probably going to be ever-so-slightly slower than Vanilla Fury, but I think it's going to end up more expensive than vanilla Fury. I love my MSI Gaming card, but it's like installing a a 2x4 plank. It's obscenely huge.

Anyways, pricing.... Remember, these are full functioning dies and probably binned for better power consumption. I see it costing $599 or perhaps even the same price as Fury X. Nvidia will be dumb if they don't respond with an official mITX GTX 980.

 

[tential]

I gotta give AMD some major props for some of the things they've done lately. First they made water-cooling standard for their single GPU flagship, then they've created a powerful reference mITX card. I don't care what anyone says, if powerful cards can be fit into smaller packages I'm all in. Fury Nano is shaping up to be an amazing card. The problem I see it having is that it won't be priced competitively. As others are saying, it's probably going to be ever-so-slightly slower than Vanilla Fury, but I think it's going to end up more expensive than vanilla Fury. I love my MSI Gaming card, but it's like installing a a 2x4 plank. It's obscenely huge.

Anyways, pricing.... Remember, these are full functioning dies and probably binned for better power consumption. I see it costing $599 or perhaps even the same price as Fury X. Nvidia will be dumb if they don't respond with an official mITX GTX 980.

Offset by the multiple blunders they had. No oc, vsr is a mess for people and doesn't work on resolutions/cards it was stated to work, low supply, hdmi 2.0, pumps, etc.

So meh

 

[monstercameron]

Offset by the multiple blunders they had. No oc, vsr is a mess for people and doesn't work on resolutions/cards it was stated to work, low supply, hdmi 2.0, pumps, etc.

So meh

Oc isn't a feature...it is a bonus, vsr works fine for my 260x, HDMI 2.0 would be good for high resolution gaming on TVs but HDMI 1.4 does UHD AND CINEMA 4K for videos just fine and dp can drive 4k panels. Pump whine only affects a few people and is covered under the warranty, etc. So your hyperbole is just that...

 

[Shmee]

I would say OC is a very important aspect to support for enthusiasts, and it has been a strong point for AMD in the past versus Nvidia. Does Nvidia still not support voltage control on new cards?

 

[tviceman]

I would say OC is a very important aspect to support for enthusiasts, and it has been a strong point for AMD in the past versus Nvidia. Does Nvidia still not support voltage control on new cards?

Nvidia basically locks down voltage, but Maxwell overclocks so well without voltage control (20-25%) that no one is complaining about it now.

 

[monstercameron]

Nvidia basically locks down voltage, but Maxwell overclocks so well without voltage control (20-25%) that no one is complaining about it now.

Afaik user controllable voltage tweaks at locked down but the drivers have some voltage range

 

[tviceman]

Afaik user controllable voltage tweaks at locked down but the drivers have some voltage range

This is true but unless the Maxwell card is under water it's virtually useless.

 

[tkrushing]

Oc isn't a feature...it is a bonus, vsr works fine for my 260x, HDMI 2.0 would be good for high resolution gaming on TVs but HDMI 1.4 does UHD AND CINEMA 4K for videos just fine and dp can drive 4k panels. Pump whine only affects a few people and is covered under the warranty, etc. So your hyperbole is just that...

I don't have plans for 4k in the near future but there are literally threads upon threads spread across here and other sites about how HDMI 2.0 was a breaking point for many people who were on the line between Fury and 980ti.

 

[tential]

I don't have plans for 4k in the near future but there are literally threads upon threads spread across here and other sites about how HDMI 2.0 was a breaking point for many people who were on the line between Fury and 980ti.

Tons of people were extremely unhappy about it while fanboy and hardcore desktop pc gamers tried to convince us that hdmi 2.0 means nothing and that if you don't game at a desk you don't count and are stupid blah blah blah.

At this point though I'm willing to give up hdmi 2.0 and 4k native for aiming for 4k vsr and 1800p vsr. So if fury x dropped to like 550 at some point I'd consider it only because fury x crossfire performance is great lol.

 

[atticus14]

I agree with a lot of people that it sucks, just because it's a missing feature, but realistically, it's not going to affect many people.

how many of you are upgrading ASAP when 14/16nm cards come out, which completely makes it a non issue. Considering, you know, it should be the biggest jump in performance we've seen in years and maybe even ever, since we've skipped a node as well, I'm thinking everyone will be in the market late next year / early 2017

 

[tential]

Oc isn't a feature...it is a bonus, vsr works fine for my 260x, HDMI 2.0 would be good for high resolution gaming on TVs but HDMI 1.4 does UHD AND CINEMA 4K for videos just fine and dp can drive 4k panels. Pump whine only affects a few people and is covered under the warranty, etc. So your hyperbole is just that...

OC isn't a feature guys. You heard it here first. If you like OCing go Nvidia I guess since Ocing isn't a feature for AMD, it's a bonus that you're LUCKY and should be GRATEFUL to get but if you want ocing as not just a bonus, but as a feature, I guess you go Nvidia.

Good to know monstercameron, usually you lean more AMD right?

 

[monstercameron]

OC isn't a feature guys. You heard it here first. If you like OCing go Nvidia I guess since Ocing isn't a feature for AMD, it's a bonus that you're LUCKY and should be GRATEFUL to get but if you want ocing as not just a bonus, but as a feature, I guess you go Nvidia.

Good to know monstercameron, usually you lean more AMD right?

I do lean AMD, I am biased, however it literally is a bonus due to the simple fact that it isn't guaranteed. Hell this is where the phrase "silicon lottery" came from. Maybe you would have an argument on a sku basis where oems have can further bin and productize overclocking.

 

[tential]

I do lean AMD, I am biased, however it literally is a bonus due to the simple fact that it isn't guaranteed. Hell this is where the phrase "silicon lottery" came from. Maybe you would have an argument on a sku basis where oems have can further bin and productize overclocking.

You're talking about the fact that getting an OC isn't guaranteed...

We're talking about the fact that having tools to actually OC should be guaranteed and not a "bonus"

 

[Silverforce11]

Yup I have to agree, tools to assist in OC or undervolt should be a requirement for the enthusiast segment.

 

[Elixer]

I am curious, are most sites going to bench the Nano vs full sized cards?
For GCN 1.2 cards that are almost as small as the Nano, these are 170mm x 116.15mm x 37mm.

(R9 380 2G D5 ITX Compact, and the sister card R9 285 ITX OC)
Though, these have only has 2GB VRAM, and are also clocked lower than a full 380/285.
This card has a max TDP of 225W compared to Nano's 175W.

So, it is possible to keep these cards cool on the more power hungry tonga tech (hitting 66C max at load), which means, that Nano could even be a quieter card, if AMD don't cheap out with a crappy loud cooler, yes cooler master, I am looking at you.

It would be pretty interesting to bench a Nano vs 380D5 (can't find cost) or 285ITX ($200) vs GeForce 970 Mini ($330) and have a battle of the 'small' cards based on cost vs performance.

Ryan, get on the phone, and request samples!

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yup I have to agree, tools to assist in OC or undervolt should be a requirement for the enthusiast segment.

I do not know if that is such a good idea for the overclocking it self.
I think you would also get a disclaimer that overclocking is voiding warranty.
If that is not already present that when enabling overclocking some popup appears explaining the voiding warranty disclaimer.
I assume that included should be then that no longer any warranty will be given when using such tools to overclock (not for under clocking since this reduces the stress on the silicon). But how are they going to check for that ? They would have to use a scanning acoustic microscope and rontgen (xray) scanning to find out what happened to the chip. That would make RMA cards very expensive to diagnose.

I overclocked my old 6600GT a modest 50MHz, i cannot remember if i ever saw such a popup or legal disclaimer...

 

[shady28]

I do not know if that is such a good idea for the overclocking it self.
I think you would also get a disclaimer that overclocking is voiding warranty.
If that is not already present that when enabling overclocking some popup appears explaining the voiding warranty disclaimer.
I assume that included should be then that no longer any warranty will be given when using such tools to overclock (not for under clocking since this reduces the stress on the silicon). But how are they going to check for that ? They would have to use a scanning acoustic microscope and rontgen (xray) scanning to find out what happened to the chip. That would make RMA cards very expensive to diagnose.

I overclocked my old 6600GT a modest 50MHz, i cannot remember if i ever saw such a popup or legal disclaimer...

They could detect it easily with a PROM or OTP NVM.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Nano looks unsurprisingly small.

 

[Shehriazad]

Nano looks unsurprisingly small.

Duh. I just finally want to see it in action. If it really has the ability to fistfight the 290X/390X all while having that low TDP and tiny size...because if the answer is yes...I'll need as many as I can possibly get @.@

 

[Abwx]

We know this:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37489068&postcount=63

Does that mean that the Nano is capped at 175W?

It means that the improvements claimed on this slide are for a 175W power.

At 175W it has 2x the perf/Watt of a 290X wich is 275W, this means that its perf relative to this card is 350/275 = 1.27x.

 

[tviceman]

Nano looks unsurprisingly small.

Love it. That card looks awesome. Bring it on!

It means that the improvements claimed on this slide are for a 175W power.

At 175W it has 2x the perf/Watt of a 290X wich is 275W, this means that its perf relative to this card is 350/275 = 1.27x.

Take all AMD claims with a huge grain of salt. Fiji was claimed to be "the world's fastest" and "most efficient" GPU during their PC Gaming event at E3.....

 

[tviceman]

It would be pretty interesting to bench a Nano vs 380D5 (can't find cost) or 285ITX ($200) vs GeForce 970 Mini ($330) and have a battle of the 'small' cards based on cost vs performance.

Ryan, get on the phone, and request samples!

It needs to be benched against everything. On a similar note, I'm really surprised Nvidia hasn't released a sanctioned mITX GTX 980 card to steal some of the Fury Nano thunder. They did it with the 980 TI ahead of Fury X's launch and it paid off in spades. I think AMD is going to tap into a niche market and make a big splash.

 

[Rvenger]

That's where HBM comes to play. I will take 2x Nanos if they are at $450. The scaling in Fiji is great that two of these cards in crossfire should beat 390x crossfire. Here's to hoping. :thumbsup:

In my eyes, Fury X was somewhat of a bust, Fury Pro was better and Nano has to be even better than the other two. They don't need the fastest product but they need a compelling product that has a good place in the market. Small PCs is becoming less of a niche and more of the norm now.

 

[tviceman]

That's where HBM comes to play. I will take 2x Nanos if they are at $450. The scaling in Fiji is great that two of these cards in crossfire should beat 390x crossfire. Here's to hoping. :thumbsup:

In my eyes, Fury X was somewhat of a bust, Fury Pro was better and Nano has to be even better than the other two. They don't need the fastest product but they need a compelling product that has a good place in the market. Small PCs is becoming less of a niche and more of the norm now.

$450 would be insanely awesome, but we're talking specially binned fully functional 600mm2 dies at around 95% the performance of Fury Pro in a specially made small package. $450 would essentially kill both Fury and Fury X off. I'll eat a goat if it happens. My best guess is that it costs the same as Fury Pro.

 

[IGemini]

$450 would be insanely awesome, but we're talking specially binned fully functional 600mm2 dies at around 95% the performance of Fury Pro in a specially made small package. $450 would essentially kill both Fury and Fury X off. I'll eat a goat if it happens. My best guess is that it costs the same as Fury Pro.

A Nano priced the same as a Fiji Pro doesn't make sense to me, even for an efficiency premium. Size is less relevant on pricing than it should be...even my uATX N200 case houses a behemoth 7870 that rivals triple-fan coolers in length.

The Nano interests me most for the power envelope. I CAN run a 390X or R9 Fury on my setup but I don't really want to tax my power supply that much.

It's a touchy price segment. The way I see it, a Nano would have to fall into the 450-500 range to be competitive. I think it'll end up being $479 but lower would be nice. Any higher than $500 and I'll just end up with a 980 instead.