Fury Nano Discussion Thread

[railven]

I don't think it has anything to do with money. AMD doesn't design for older tech. They jump into the newest and latest with 2 feet. It's not always to their benefit because the industry doesn't move with them.

Has it ever been to their benefit? By the time the industry does move over everyone and their father is enriched by the mature tech which is cheaper and often overshadow's AMD original involvement to the point people don't even remember it was AMD ringing the bell first.

I will always Kudos AMD for moving us forward, but they need to exploit their progress to some degree. They are at corporate death's door! You got Silver getting excited over anything Asych but it won't matter much if devs don't use it or Pascal returns AMD to second best with a tech they innovated.

Just look at FreeSync, Intel/Nvidia adopting it would make more of a splash than AMD promoting it.

 

[Subyman]

We need to calm down in this thread. Lower the tone or more infractions will be given

Moderator Subyman

 

[mohit9206]

I would so love to buy this card for $400. I wouldn't pay anymore than that as 4gb vram will become entry level in two years.
Pros High performance, small size and sub 200 watts.
Cons 4gb vram is not enough, overpriced.

 

[RussianSensation]

So for those of you that keep harping on the fastest SFF claim. Can you provide a selection of retail cases that without any modifications can accommodate a Nano, while not being large enough for a standard sized card?

Are you saying you cannot find 1-2 mini ITX cases for sale that will not support a GTX980 (>10" videocard)? You cannot be serious.

Lian Li PC-05 only supports GPUs as long as 190mm. That rules out all GTX980/980Ti/Titan/Titan X cards and it would likely not accommodate the Fury X in there because Fury X's PCB alone is 7.5" (190.5 cm) and with the shroud the card is 194 cm.

Lian-Li PC-05S, one of the most beautiful miniITX cases today (miles better looking imo than that prehistoric SUGO07/08 miniITX cases) for sure cannot fit a GPU of 10" in length which is where most modern flagship cards are.

Are you saying these 3 sample cases AMD provided will not support the Nano? I sure do not see a GTX980/980Ti/Titan X fitting in them if those limitations are actually correct. The middle case won't be able to fit the Fury X either.

I also find it interesting RS, that you are able to constantly come up with these wall of text responses to the most brief and inane posts, yet you have been called out twice in this thread for posting clearly factually inaccurate information and somehow managed to completely ignore both of them.

Can you please point out what I posted as "factually inaccurate information" because I clearly missed it.

The shortest GTX980 card I can find is 10.43" (26.5 cm for reference design).

That tells me people insinuating we've had this level of performance in this miniITX form factor in this TDP for nearly a year now are just making stuff up.

You are also the one insinuating that there is no reason for the Nano which is akin to claiming today we can put a GTX980 level card inside a miniITX case. There are miniITX cases that cannot fit a GTX980/Fury X style card. A good argument was made for the Fury X but that card is 194 cm long which suits most miniITX cases but not all cases.

The other point you keep missing are possibilities of new cases. You keep claiming that what's the point of the Nano since there are no cases with < 7" constraints in length. Why is that there are no cases like that? Because it would have been suicidal to make GPU length constraints this strict with 0 powerful GPUs that could fit this criteria.

As I have already stated, the issue with the Nano is the price. I personally have no interest in a miniITX build. But, it's clear that anyone who wants to build the most compact miniITX case has no alternatives besides going with a Nano or Fury X, or otherwise, you have to take a large performance penalty of using a mini GTX970. The Gigabyte miniGTX970 has terrible user reviews which leaves the market with just the Asus 970 mini.

Other than the fact that 970 is going to be slower than the Nano, the 970's 3.5GB VRAM issue is still in the air. NV needed a lot of driver work to get this card to not stutter profusely in Shadow of Mordor and early benchmarks of Black Ops 3 once again showing 970 bombing against 290/290X, barely faster than the 280X at 1440P.

BTW, in no way am I defending the Nano's pricing but it's amusing how certain people are downplaying what AMD actually accomplished here. Without even needing a new architecture (NV went through Fermi->Kepler->Maxwell), AMD looks like it managed to make the world's smallest and fastest miniITX GPU. September 10th benchmarks should prove this point. It's also always going to go down in history that AMD revolutionized GPU graphics twice with GDDR5 and HBM, while everyone else just followed.

Fury X2 is going to be the ultimate showcase of this new technology to which NV will likely not have an answer until Pascal.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Are you saying these 3 sample cases AMD provided will not support the Nano?

2 of those 3 cases got bigger volume than cases that can support 12.2" cards. So its a terrible way to show a need for a smaller card. And there is no default airflow in the case that is actually smaller. So the heat dumping Nano+CPU will just turn it into a heating nightmare. Unless you install those 40mm terrible fans it supports. If this is the selling case for the Nano and other mini cards it failed flat.

And most cases that only support smaller cards needs to be low profile and single slot. Not counting all the cases that cant support any discrete GPU.

 

[3DVagabond]

I would so love to buy this card for $400. I wouldn't pay anymore than that as 4gb vram will become entry level in two years.
Pros High performance, small size and sub 200 watts.
Cons 4gb vram is not enough, overpriced.

Considering consoles aren't going to get more VRAM, we shouldn't see requirements escalate. Plus, we have AMD's statement that they've basically been wasting VRAM allocation because there was an abundance of it due to needing bandwidth and HBM has alleviated that.

 

[DustinBrowder]

Has it ever been to their benefit? By the time the industry does move over everyone and their father is enriched by the mature tech which is cheaper and often overshadow's AMD original involvement to the point people don't even remember it was AMD ringing the bell first.

I will always Kudos AMD for moving us forward, but they need to exploit their progress to some degree. They are at corporate death's door! You got Silver getting excited over anything Asych but it won't matter much if devs don't use it or Pascal returns AMD to second best with a tech they innovated.

Just look at FreeSync, Intel/Nvidia adopting it would make more of a splash than AMD promoting it.

You understand the physical amount of storage in not that important? You understand its about the speed at which data can be processed through?

4GB HBM is 1.7x times faster than GDDR5 memory, so that means in relative terms could account for 1.7x times more ram. Basically 8GB GDDR5 would carry the same amount of data than a 4GB HBM.

I mean heck if you had 1GB memory working at 5000GBps it it would do more than 12GB of ram at say 150gbps.

It all depends how memory is used and what is used for.

Because of the limitations in other spheres with traditional GDDR memory, the size itself has increased to accommodate for other weaknesses.

 

[bystander36]

You understand the physical amount of storage in not that important? You understand its about the speed at which data can be processed through?

4GB HBM is 1.7x times faster than GDDR5 memory, so that means in relative terms could account for 1.7x times more ram. Basically 8GB GDDR5 would carry the same amount of data than a 4GB HBM.

I mean heck if you had 1GB memory working at 5000GBps it it would do more than 12GB of ram at say 150gbps.

It all depends how memory is used and what is used for.

Because of the limitations in other spheres with traditional GDDR memory, the size itself has increased to accommodate for other weaknesses.

Not really. The problem is not just how fast it sends stuff, but whether it can hold all the data that is needed in VRAM. Once it has to go to RAM or the HDD, things get ugly really fast. There does appear to be some tricks they may have used in the past that used some extra VRAM that aren't needed now, but VRAM speed does not directly make up for less VRAM.

 

[antihelten]

Lian Li PC-05 only supports GPUs as long as 190mm. That rules out all GTX980/980Ti/Titan/Titan X cards and it would likely not accommodate the Fury X in there because Fury X's PCB alone is 7.5" (190.5 cm) and with the shroud the card is 194 cm.

Actually you can remove the HDD cage in the PC-05, which should allow you to install GPUs with a length of up to 12.5 inches (318mm)

You could also get the Silverstone RVZ02, which is even smaller than the PC-05, and supports GPUs up to 13 inches.

 

[mohit9206]

Considering consoles aren't going to get more VRAM, we shouldn't see requirements escalate. Plus, we have AMD's statement that they've basically been wasting VRAM allocation because there was an abundance of it due to needing bandwidth and HBM has alleviated that.

Games already use more than 4gb vram. GTA V at 1080p uses more than 4gb. 4gb is not acceptable for $650 card aimed at 4k gaming.
It has nothing to do with consoles. Requirements will keep increasing every year. There are no shortage of unoptimized games with high system requirements but poor performance and more will keep coming every year. Battlefield, call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, watch dogs and other such unoptimized crap.

 

[AtenRa]

Actually you can remove the HDD cage in the PC-05, which should allow you to install GPUs with a length of up to 12.5 inches (318mm)

You could also get the Silverstone RVZ02, which is even smaller than the PC-05, and supports GPUs up to 13 inches.

Yes there are mini-itx SFF cases that when you remove the HDD cage you can install large 300mm+ GPUs. The thing is that if you want to install 2-3 HDD drives inside the case, you will have to install a 160mm small GPU like Fury Nano.

Some cases that only support 160-180mm GPUs, im sure there are more and even more designs are coming in the next months.

RAIJINTEK METIS Mini-ITX

Lian Li PC-Q07B

Lian Li PC-Q03A

Cubitek Mini Center Mini-ITX

 

[3DVagabond]

Games already use more than 4gb vram. GTA V at 1080p uses more than 4gb. 4gb is not acceptable for $650 card aimed at 4k gaming.
It has nothing to do with consoles. Requirements will keep increasing every year. There are no shortage of unoptimized games with high system requirements but poor performance and more will keep coming every year. Battlefield, call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, watch dogs and other such unoptimized crap.

GTA V @ 1080, eh? OK.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes there are mini-itx SFF cases that when you remove the HDD cage you can install large 300mm+ GPUs. The thing is that if you want to install 2-3 HDD drives inside the case, you will have to install a 160mm small GPU like Fury Nano.

Some cases that only support 160-180mm GPUs, im sure there are more and even more designs are coming in the next months.

RAIJINTEK METIS Mini-ITX

Lian Li PC-Q07B

Lian Li PC-Q03A

Cubitek Mini Center Mini-ITX

Its just hillarious to see a case that is going to house 200W+ of heat without a single system fan.

And the one with a fan is so big you can just as well get a case that supports 12"+.

And what future cases will we see? Just you guessing?

MiniITX is mainly split in 2 camps. One that support full length cards and those that doesnt support any.

And then there is a tiny middle ground with a couple of cases that support something like the Nano, while most in that tiny middle ground supports low profile single slot cards only. And this is where all mini type cards ends between a hard place and a rock.

It got quite clear in AMDs slide how misplaced this product is in terms of the target premium. 1 of the 3 cases are directly huge on the borderline to support MicroATX. And another is simply in the big end for full length card support. The last is just a heat trap where you need to install terrible 40mm fans for any cooling.

Trying to get a huge premium on something that never costed anything extra to fit in an tiny niche of the MiniITX segment is just terrible. AMD should just have market it, if capable, as a 175W Fury. Instead its just a GTX980 at 10W more for 200$ premium.

 

[Skurge]

Its just hillarious to see a case that is going to house 200W+ of heat without a single system fan.

And the one with a fan is so big you can just as well get a case that supports 12"+.

And what future cases will we see? Just you guessing?

MiniITX is mainly split in 2 camps. One that support full length cards and those that doesnt support any.

And then there is a tiny middle ground with a couple of cases that support something like the Nano, while most in that tiny middle ground supports low profile single slot cards only. And this is where all mini type cards ends between a hard place and a rock.

It got quite clear in AMDs slide how misplaced this product is in terms of the target premium. 1 of the 3 cases are directly huge on the borderline to support MicroATX. And another is simply in the big end for full length card support. The last is just a heat trap where you need to install terrible 40mm fans for any cooling.

Trying to get a huge premium on something that never costed anything extra to fit in an tiny niche of the MiniITX segment is just terrible. AMD should just have market it, if capable, as a 175W Fury. Instead its just a GTX980 at 10W more for 200$ premium.

You mean 90W right? half the heated air is exhausted out the back. Also, I don't understand why you are saying 200W+

 

[ShintaiDK]

You mean 90W right? half the heated air is exhausted out the back. Also, I don't understand why you are saying 200W+

Is half going out? And what about everything else?

 

[mohit9206]

GTA V @ 1080, eh? OK.

I have proof to back up my claims.
GTA V

Shadow of Mordor

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

4gb is not enough even at 1080p.
6gb is minimum required at 1080p and 1440p if you want to max everything out. Make that 8gb for 4k.

 

[antihelten]

Yes there are mini-itx SFF cases that when you remove the HDD cage you can install large 300mm+ GPUs. The thing is that if you want to install 2-3 HDD drives inside the case, you will have to install a 160mm small GPU like Fury Nano.

Some cases that only support 160-180mm GPUs, im sure there are more and even more designs are coming in the next months.

RAIJINTEK METIS Mini-ITX

Lian Li PC-Q07B

Lian Li PC-Q03A

Cubitek Mini Center Mini-ITX

The Silverstone RVZ02 can fit in three 2.5" drives even with a full length GPU (only 2 drives if you also want an optical drive).

And frankly as far as shoebox style cases go, the cases you linked pretty much all look like poorly designed (from a functional standpoint) versions of the SG13. The SG13 is capable of accommodating a 10.5" GPU whilst simultaneously fitting in three 2.5" drives (or one 2.5" drive and one 3.5" drive), plus it's vastly better cooled (none of the cases you linked are really designed for components at the TDP level being discussed here).

In other words, I'm not really sure that the existence of poorly designed cases is sufficient validation for the idea of a 6" GPU at $650.

 

[Skurge]

Is half going out? And what about everything else?

What is "everything else"?

 

[AtenRa]

The Silverstone RVZ02 can fit in three 2.5" drives even with a full length GPU (only 2 drives if you also want an optical drive).

And frankly as far as shoebox style cases go, the cases you linked pretty much all look like poorly designed (from a functional standpoint) versions of the SG13. The SG13 is capable of accommodating a 10.5" GPU whilst simultaneously fitting in three 2.5" drives (or one 2.5" drive and one 3.5" drive), plus it's vastly better cooled (none of the cases you linked are really designed for components at the TDP level being discussed here).

In other words I'm not really sure that the existence of poorly designed cases is sufficient validation for the idea of a 6" GPU at $650.

I know the Silverstone RVZ series, exceptional cases. But there are people that want 2-3 or more 3.5" HDD high capacity drives (2-3-4 or 6TB) for movies/storage with the smallest Case size possible. You cannot use the RVZ for that.

Also,

1: Fury Nano dumps half of the hot air outside of the case.
2: All those cases have a fan, through the PSU.

sum up = That means no problem installing a Nano in those small cases.

One more thing, now that High-End GPUs (from both AMD and NVIDIA) are made that small, Case manufacturers will make knew designs.

ps: I want to see if people will have the same reaction when faster NVIDIA cards will release next year at the same form factor. :whiste:

 

[ShintaiDK]

What is "everything else"?

Memory, board, CPU, storage etc.

Also even if we imagine the card didnt have any other surface but the heatsink affected by airflow. you still get more than 50% inside the case due to resistance. The card is essentially a 1 slot port in one side and a 2 slot port in the other. The VRM part also sits in the "case" side. I would be surprised if even 1/3rd gets outside the case.

 

[NTMBK]

I have proof to back up my claims.
GTA V

Shadow of Mordor

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

4gb is not enough even at 1080p.
6gb is minimum required at 1080p and 1440p if you want to max everything out. Make that 8gb for 4k.

VRAM utilised does not indicate the VRAM necessarily required. Game engines cache stuff in VRAM, leaving textures and geometry in there "just in case" they are needed in the future. Doesn't mean that it actually makes any noticeable difference to performance. Take a look at Techreport's measurements, showing how it doesn't actually make any difference at any playable framerates. You can show a difference at 4k max settings, but at that point it's not playable on any card, 4GB or 12GB.

 

[3DVagabond]

I have proof to back up my claims.
GTA V

Shadow of Mordor

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

4gb is not enough even at 1080p.
6gb is minimum required at 1080p and 1440p if you want to max everything out. Make that 8gb for 4k.

Proof would be showing Fury tanking in GTAV @ 1080 because it ran out of VRAM. Allocated VRAM isn't a good indicator.

 

[antihelten]

I know the Silverstone RVZ series, exceptional cases. But there are people that want 2-3 or more 3.5" HDD high capacity drives (2-3-4 or 6TB) for movies/storage with the smallest Case size possible. You cannot use the RVZ for that.

Also,

1: Fury Nano dumps half of the hot air outside of the case.
2: All those cases have a fan, through the PSU.

sum up = That means no problem installing a Nano in those small cases.

One more thing, now that High-End GPUs (from both AMD and NVIDIA) are made that small, Case manufacturers will make knew designs.

ps: I want to see if people will have the same reaction when faster NVIDIA cards will release next year at the same form factor. :whiste:

You can also get 2TB 2.5" drives (although they are of course a fair bit more expensive). The Silverstone FTZ01 (which is smaller than the LL PC-05 and can fit full length cards) can fit three 2.5" drives and one 3.5" drive (which is more than any of the cases you linked), and I would dare say that the people who need more than that (and for some reason don't get a NAS instead), are a fairly small niche to put it mildly.

As far as cooling goes, the Fury Nano should actually dump somewhat less that half the heat out the back, seeing as the power delivery components are cooled from the front of the card. And any case that uses the PSU as one of the main means to cool the case is poorly designed in my humble opinion.

As far as my reaction towards the card vis-à-vis Nvidia making similar ones next year, I have no issue with AMD making powerful small form factor cards, but the number of use cases (in other words the number of PC cases) where such a card makes sense in the first place are simply too few and too niche to be worth an extra $200 versus a GTX 980, in my opinion.

 

[AtenRa]

and I would dare say that the people who need more than that (and for some reason don't get a NAS instead), are a fairly small niche to put it mildly.

Not everyone wants another BOX or has the money for a NAS. Also people may not have more than 1-2 HDDs when they buy the PC but will install more HDDs in the PC life time.

As far as cooling goes, the Fury Nano should actually dump somewhat less that half the heat out the back, seeing as the power delivery components are cooled from the front of the card. And any case that uses the PSU as one of the main means to cool the case is poorly designed in my humble opinion.

The PSU fan takes the hot air from inside the case and dumps it outside. Same as having a fan in the case.

As far as my reaction towards the cards vis-à-vis Nvidia making similar ones next year, I have no issue with AMD making powerful small form factor cards, but the number of use cases (in other words the number of PC cases) where such a card makes sense in the first place are simply too few and too niche to be worth an extra $200 versus a GTX 980.

You forget that Fury Nano will be faster at 4K than GTX980, that also commands a premium even if you dont want to install it in a small form factor case.

 

[3DVagabond]

As far as my reaction towards the card vis-à-vis Nvidia making similar ones next year, I have no issue with AMD making powerful small form factor cards, but the number of use cases (in other words the number of PC cases) where such a card makes sense in the first place are simply too few and too niche to be worth an extra $200 versus a GTX 980, in my opinion.

What about a 390X? Suppose that's too big though?