Hugo Drax, R9 Nano review. Mini ITX 304 node case.

[Hugo Drax]

Okay This is a ongoing review of the R9 Nano, no game benchmarks since there are plenty of these.

#1 This card is tiny, it is smaller than even the Sapphire R9 285 OC Compact mini ITX card. I thought that card was small.

Idle CPU for the R9 nano is 300Mhz, GPU Memory clock speed is only 500 Mhz. The card runs much cooler than the R9 285 at idle. Right now in the enclosed case it is only 32C vs 45C for the R9 285 card.

VDDC is 0.9v

This is a cool running card. Right now I am running some productivity on two monitors. I will be doing more testing but regular productivity apps it runs 32C vs 49C on the R9 285

The card is quiet and runs cooler for productivity 4K activity.

It is obvious ATI did some changes since GPU load runs much lower,small intermittent spikes and cpu at 320mhz doing charting etc.. trading stuff. 32C vs 49-50c

 

[Hugo Drax]

Wow Virtualbox graphics runs significantly faster, it was very choppy running Ubuntu graphics before.

Wow very cool running, I am now running a 3d visualization (several types of equity options analysis) The GPU is running at 433 Mhz right now but the card is only at 38-39c Runs much cooler than the R9 285 card I had before.

The CPU is actually running hotter at 75c but this is normal when running simulations etc..

 

[tential]

That's quite cool that it is helping you in work workloads.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I started playing Alien isolation 4K and unlike the older card which you can hear sounding like a turbine. (R9 285) this one runs quiet still, Max temp it was hitting was 75 degrees. Amazing how small and quiet/cool this card is yet it has double the ram and much more transistors than the R9 285.

They must really be choosing the best of the best chips in terms of power/heat for these Nano cards.

 

[Elixer]

Too bad this wasn't a launch card...

I am curious, we know it is small, but, how much does it weigh? Is it about the same as your old 285, or does it weigh more?

 

[Hugo Drax]

Too bad this wasn't a launch card...

I am curious, we know it is small, but, how much does it weigh? Is it about the same as your old 285, or does it weigh more?

Here is a picture comparing the two cards, Did not think to weigh them but I do not think there was too much of a difference between the two. Curious why did you think this should have been the launch card?

Amazing that this card is smaller than the old in all dimensions. The 14nm era for GPU is gonna be quite interesting.
BTW This card just loafs with Xplane 9 4K resolution. cpu stays around 42c quiet as a mouse, NO loud fanblower noise. The R9 285 would hit 65-68c and the fan would be very loud.

 

[Seba]

What is the fan diameter (from R9 Nano)? 90mm?

 

[Hugo Drax]

What is the fan diameter (from R9 Nano)? 90mm?

I would say it is slightly smaller since the card is not as tall as the R9 285.

I wonder why the Fury X has to have that foolish liquid cooling solution with an external fan with hoses etc..

This card just runs so much cooler than the R9 285, AMD could just have gone with the heatsink for the X model since it is longer than this card.

The fact that it runs cooler and much quieter than the R9 285 is quite impressive, I wonder what they did to achieve this, there has to be some architectural changes since it is still a 28nm mask chip yet more transistors more performance.

I will be doing testing for a month and qualify it for the standard build I use. I would end up swapping out the R9 285s on the other 4 mini itx trading stations with the R9 nanos. It runs cooler, quieter and much much more performance.

This is definitely an interesting product I don't think I have come a cross anything this efficient and compact before, AMD has hit this one out of the park.

 

[boozzer]

goddamn, I want it in 14nm and in a laptop! give me!

 

[3DVagabond]

I would say it is slightly smaller since the card is not as tall as the R9 285.

I wonder why the Fury X has to have that foolish liquid cooling solution with an external fan with hoses etc..

This card just runs so much cooler than the R9 285, AMD could just have gone with the heatsink for the X model since it is longer than this card.

The fact that it runs cooler and much quieter than the R9 285 is quite impressive, I wonder what they did to achieve this, there has to be some architectural changes since it is still a 28nm mask chip yet more transistors more performance.

I will be doing testing for a month and qualify it for the standard build I use. I would end up swapping out the R9 285s on the other 4 mini itx trading stations with the R9 nanos. It runs cooler, quieter and much much more performance.

This is definitely an interesting product I don't think I have come a cross anything this efficient and compact before, AMD has hit this one out of the park.

Large pure copper vapor chamber. It's not an off the shelf stock standard cooler.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Small footprint + high end performance = great product but still think it should cost 50ish less than Fury X

 

[Hugo Drax]

Small footprint + high end performance = great product but still think it should cost 50ish less than Fury X

I bought the card for 620, free shipping. That's what they are going for.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I bought the card for 620, free shipping. That's what they are going for.

Almost there
$600 should be launch price IMO. So they are dropping slowly from $650, better than nothing i guess

 

[Hugo Drax]

Almost there
$600 should be launch price IMO. So they are dropping slowly from $650, better than nothing i guess

I could see 600 bucks in a few months.

I think you will not see cheaper until 14nm appears and they get HBM down pat and can pump these chips out.


This is the coolest GPU I have seen in quite some time, right now it is at 27c doing regular work, yet things are much snappier etc..

 

[RussianSensation]

Almost there
$600 should be launch price IMO. So they are dropping slowly from $650, better than nothing i guess

I think $600 is too much.

-- $650 for Fury X was too much against after-market 980Ti. IMO the Fury X should have been $579-599.

-- The Nano being a niche product should have probably been looked at as a form-factor choice against the Fury. Large case = Fury, small miniITX case = Nano. Their performance is roughly similar. Since I put Fury X at $579-599, I think the Fury/Nano should have been $479-499, but to take away market share from NV really $449.

Today at $600 it's still way too expensive.

-- It's possible to buy an XFX Fury for $520
-- Asus Strix 980 with RB6 Siege or AC:S is $450
-- At $600, unless one is space constrained, an after-market GTX980Ti will slaughter the Nano. It's easily possible to find 980Ti for $600 US in United States.
-- Since so few gamers online own the Nano, that's another sign that its price completely missed the market for most gamers.

I think right now the Nano should cost $450 at most.

---------

I like the Nano better in white.

It's crazy to think AMD was putting the blower on the 7970 925mhz but the Nano is so quiet.

The Nano peaks at higher power usage than the original 7970 blower.

Noise levels:

I hope AMD can go release as many HBM products as possible in 2016.

 

[Elixer]

Here is a picture comparing the two cards, Did not think to weigh them but I do not think there was too much of a difference between the two. Curious why did you think this should have been the launch card?

Thanks for the pics!

As for why I think it should have been a launch card is that when they first announced it on stage, it had everything going for it, and it basically stole the show.

It would have made more of a bang if they launched all three at the same time.

 

[Hugo Drax]

That White nano looks really cool.

 

[Despoiler]

I think $600 is too much.

-- $650 for Fury X was too much against after-market 980Ti. IMO the Fury X should have been $579-599.

-- The Nano being a niche product should have probably been looked at as a form-factor choice against the Fury. Large case = Fury, small miniITX case = Nano. Their performance is roughly similar. Since I put Fury X at $579-599, I think the Fury/Nano should have been $479-499, but to take away market share from NV really $449.

Today at $600 it's still way too expensive.

-- It's possible to buy an XFX Fury for $520
-- Asus Strix 980 with RB6 Siege or AC:S is $450
-- At $600, unless one is space constrained, an after-market GTX980Ti will slaughter the Nano. It's easily possible to find 980Ti for $600 US in United States.
-- Since so few gamers online own the Nano, that's another sign that its price completely missed the market for most gamers.

I think right now the Nano should cost $450 at most.

---------

I hope AMD can go release as many HBM products as possible in 2016.

You have realize that the $650 is the MSRP? The AMD card prices will arrange themselves where they should fall now that the supply constraints are supposedly resolved. The only reason why aftermarket 980Ti are are cheaper are because they aren't supply constrained. The AIBs are competing against each other, not AMD.

 

[tential]

You have realize that the $650 is the MSRP? The AMD card prices will arrange themselves where they should fall now that the supply constraints are supposedly resolved. The only reason why aftermarket 980Ti are are cheaper are because they aren't supply constrained. The AIBs are competing against each other, not AMD.

And the msrp of 650 is too high he is saying.... He didn't say anything wrong I'm not sure why you're so condescending in your reply.

 

[tential]

Thanks for the pics!

As for why I think it should have been a launch card is that when they first announced it on stage, it had everything going for it, and it basically stole the show.

It would have made more of a bang if they launched all three at the same time.

It stole the show because people thought it would be priced a lot lower than it did. People still were excited. Then the price was announced. I've never seen casual gamers go from excited to crickets so fast. But yes the nano was problematic because it was targeted against the gtx 970/980, but priced against a 980ti/fury x.
It pissed off a lot more casual gamers who were watching the card for upgrade purposes than you think/realize.

 

[Hugo Drax]

It stole the show because people thought it would be priced a lot lower than it did. People still were excited. Then the price was announced. I've never seen casual gamers go from excited to crickets so fast. But yes the nano was problematic because it was targeted against the gtx 970/980, but priced against a 980ti/fury x.
It pissed off a lot more casual gamers who were watching the card for upgrade purposes than you think/realize.

For most gamers though why would you want a Nano R9 and not the cheaper faster regular fury card? or even cheaper Nvidia.
(Actually the R9 Nano is still cheaper than the Fury X) by 30 dollars. (or 50 dollars now with the 20 dollar rebate) for 599

I have specific needs that this card meets and passed evaluations with flying colors. but for the average person The Nvidia is cheaper so why not just buy that?

I think the whole liquid cooling thing fury product is kind of stupid and over engineered.


I can see why the R9 Nano is expensive, it is a niche product that uses the top shelf binned chips that come out of the fab.

Yeah if ATI comes out with the R9 nano at 400 bucks they will destroy the market, but I do not think they are in that position. I am not sure if ATI might even survive 2016.

 

[NTMBK]

-- At $600, unless one is space constrained, an after-market GTX980Ti will slaughter the Nano.

And this is where you're completely missing the point.

The Nano is aimed at this niche in the market- compact systems, which need a compact card and low power consumption. It's not intended to be a perf/$ contender, that is what the Fury and R9 390 are for. I mean come on, the clue is in the name. It's not called the R9 Value, it's called the R9 Nano.

 

[Techhog]

For most gamers though why would you want a Nano R9 and not the cheaper faster regular fury card? or even cheaper Nvidia.
(Actually the R9 Nano is still cheaper than the Fury X) by 30 dollars. (or 50 dollars now with the 20 dollar rebate) for 599

I have specific needs that this card meets and passed evaluations with flying colors. but for the average person The Nvidia is cheaper so why not just buy that?

I think the whole liquid cooling thing fury product is kind of stupid and over engineered.


I can see why the R9 Nano is expensive, it is a niche product that uses the top shelf binned chips that come out of the fab.

Yeah if ATI comes out with the R9 nano at 400 bucks they will destroy the market, but I do not think they are in that position. I am not sure if ATI might even survive 2016.

That's not how you use parenthesis.

 

[tential]

For most gamers though why would you want a Nano R9 and not the cheaper faster regular fury card? or even cheaper Nvidia.
(Actually the R9 Nano is still cheaper than the Fury X) by 30 dollars. (or 50 dollars now with the 20 dollar rebate) for 599

I have specific needs that this card meets and passed evaluations with flying colors. but for the average person The Nvidia is cheaper so why not just buy that?

I think the whole liquid cooling thing fury product is kind of stupid and over engineered.


I can see why the R9 Nano is expensive, it is a niche product that uses the top shelf binned chips that come out of the fab.

Yeah if ATI comes out with the R9 nano at 400 bucks they will destroy the market, but I do not think they are in that position. I am not sure if ATI might even survive 2016.

I mean that's what I'm saying though. When they announced nano they didn't say price. So when all of the nano slides compared it to the 970/980 everyone was thinking pricing at most would be 500.

Everyone lost interest when it was at the fury x price otherwise it would have been a far more interesting release.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I mean that's what I'm saying though. When they announced nano they didn't say price. So when all of the nano slides compared it to the 970/980 everyone was thinking pricing at most would be 500.

Everyone lost interest when it was at the fury x price otherwise it would have been a far more interesting release.

Eventually they will sell for 500 but new cards seem to always start out at the gate at higher prices, Why let ebayers pocket the spread for new products? Sell at MSRP for the initial lot. then lower the prices as time goes on. Now they are down to 599.

IF AMD did start the nano at 500, the only thing that would happen is scalpers would but them and sell them for 650 on ebay.

Yields will start ramping up over time.