R9 Nano Reportedly Launching on August 27th (WCCF Tech)

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-delayed-september-wip/

Hate linking to that site, so I'm sorry. But there hasn't been much news about the Nano. I'm excited to see what this card can do. Honestly it's probably the most exciting card out of the bunch since it actually takes advantage of the small PCB. I don't think there's ever been a GPU like this in the past, where they've taken their flagship GPU and under clocked it for the sake of efficiency.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
It's fine to link to it. But help us out then. You already went to it, the proper thing to do is to quote the article so we don't have to give clickbait sites clicks.

AMD is expected to launch their Fiji based, compact-ITX form factor, Radeon R9 Nano graphics card next week on 27th August. The report comes from Zolkorn (an industry veteran based in the Thai market) who received details from industry based sources that AMD will be unveiling their 16cm graphics card on 27th August that is just a week away.
AMD Radeon R9 NANO
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Might Launch on 27th August – 175W Fiji and HBM Powered Graphics Card
The AMD Radeon R9 Nano is one of the most anticipated card of the Radeon 300 series lineup that was showed by AMD at their E3 event. We didn’t get a ton of information about the card but the details AMD showed in their slides are quite juicy. The AMD Radeon R9 Nano is a tiny card, that’s what AMD said it themselves. It might be tiny but for a card this small, it has some shocking performance and efficiency numbers. This card is actually based on the same 8.9 Billion transistor boasting Fiji GPU which is featured on the Radeon R9 Fury X and has 4 GB HBM VRAM dedicated for gaming that runs along a 1024-bit wide bus interface clocked at 500 MHz (1 Gbps effective) that pumps out 512 GB/s bandwidth. This card boasts 2.0 times the performance per watt compared to Hawaii and that is just crazy and yes, it is actually faster than Hawaii too, not some numbers AMD is giving out for marketing.
The AMD Radeon R9 Nano is faster than Hawaii and we mean the full fat Hawaii chip featured on the Radeon R9 290X. The proves that AMD has done some crazy work designing this little beast of a card which is just an amazing engineering feat by the team at Red. The other thing is that, the card has a 175W thermal design power and the same goes for typical power usage. AMD has given this card a single 8-Pin power connector to feed power to it. It has 2 times the performance density and is 2 times the performance per watt compared to R9 290X and here is where things get interesting.
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Features 85-90% Performance of Radeon R9 Fury X
AMD Radeon R9 Nano_1
Now AMD has already launched their Fiji XT based Radeon R9 Fury X and Fiji Pro based Radeon R9 Fury. Those cards are rated with a 275W TDP while the Radeon R9 Nano, also a Fiji based card is 175W. The reason it is so efficient has to do with two things and those include a significantly cut down Fiji GPU along with lower clock speeds. Even with those in place, the card is still faster than the 290 and 390 series that are based on Hawaii GPU. In fact, AMD confirmed to us that the Radeon R9 Nano is about 85-90% of Radeon R9 Fury X (in terms of performance). We still don’t know as to how much extent is the card disabled since the card has a launch slated for later in summer, this year, but I can guess that the card may be priced around the $449-$499 US range. But it was revealed by several sites that the Nano will come with the full Fiji core so we believe AMD is using some magic spice to make this card operate at 175W.
There’s reason to believe so, the AMD Radeon R9 390X which features the Hawaii XT (Grenada XT) core is said to be slower than the Radeon R9 Nano. The Radeon R9 390X is priced at $429 US at the moment so it will be a bad decision to release the card at a lower price than 390X. The $449 Us and $499 US spots actually sound a lot better since it offers better performance than R9 390X and even comes close to the Radeon R9 Fury X, then it will be an interesting offering in the consumer market. Do note that this is just speculation and the card may even end up priced lower than my guesses here.
The last bit about the card is the thermal solution itself. The single fan air cooler confirms that the card can actually be clocked lower to make room for smaller PCB and cooler designs. The R9 Fury X uses liquid cooling while the R9 Fury is said to feature a triple fan air cooler. Display outputs include three Display Ports and a single HDMI display connector. Launching on 27th August, it will be interesting to see how the Radeon R9 Nano stacks up inside AMD’s lineup as it may become they most powerful HTPC solution ever created.
 

Elixer

Lifer
May 7, 2002
10,371
762
126
Well, we did know it will launch in August, and, from what the BestBuy people were saying, they should have stock on the 1st...so, plausible.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
85%-90% of fury x performance at 450-500?
That's a weird spot for it to be at
 

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
I would be surprised if it launches at $449. AMD needs to move some cards so hopefully that is the price. But whether or not they will have the supply to meet demand is another story.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
It doesn't make sense for Nano to be significantly cut down. Wider core = lower clockspeed for same perf = lower tdp for same perf. I can't see it being more cut down than Fury, if its even cut down at all...
 

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
I thought all the rumors so far have been pointing to it being full Fiji? That doesn't mean they won't sell it at a lower price - obviously it offers less performance and doesn't come with a water cooler. But it will appeal to a certain niche. I'm just curious where it will land performance wise. Excited to see some numbers. I suppose current Fury X owners could set an extremely low power profile to get an early picture of what we should expect.
 
Last edited:

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
Hmm, my lil mitx 7850K spare needs a dancing partner...

I was planning on waiting to till greenland to buy another amd gpu but this is enticing.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
They can just take full Fury, give it -vcore & bios with a 175W TDP limit, like what Asus does to their Fury at 213W. It will throttle clocks, but not by much. 85-90% performance of Fury X at 175W.

Actually, Toms already found that to be true when they tested Fury X with -50% power limit in CC, power usage drop massively and performance drop about 10%.

It's what I do every day for my R290s & R290X. My R290X uses a lot less power than a 970 while being similar in performance. Undervolt & -power limit does wonders for GCN. So Nano's perf/w is not a surprise.

The only interesting thing is the price. $449 would make it an EXCELLENT deal and it'll be gobbled up by all the mITX builders. But it will also force major drops on the 390/X.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
It's fine to link to it. But help us out then. You already went to it, the proper thing to do is to quote the article so we don't have to give clickbait sites clicks.

It is improper to copy the entire page, it should only be the relevant bits.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
...so we believe AMD is using some magic spice to make this card operate at 175W

Magic spice? Because lowering clocks and vcore a bit is magic?
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Magic spice? Because lowering clocks and vcore a bit is magic?

Take Fury X, set power limit -50%, clocks throttle, you lose ~10% performance but save nearly 100W!

Look at Tomshardware article on it.

Fury Nano looks to be nothing more than a power limit bios at 175W.

Asus Fury shows that it can maintain 1Ghz clocks with a 213W bios. So dropping less than that, will lose some performance, ~850mhz clocks is about right. Lower clocks but full die = power efficient.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
uBv1JV.png

https://twitter.com/GBlonet/status/634701716945006592
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,144
236
116
Well, if the Nano is for HTPC users who also game, HDMI2.0 makes sense....but it also made sense on the Fury X....

Freakin yes HDMI 2.0!
This card is perfect if you want a HTPC. Small form factor = high WAF factor. Most of the HTPC case looks freaking ugly though.

I very strongly hope it rivals RuryX in sound or it would be a deal breaker for me.
 

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
Freakin yes HDMI 2.0!
This card is perfect if you want a HTPC. Small form factor = high WAF factor. Most of the HTPC case looks freaking ugly though.

I very strongly hope it rivals RuryX in sound or it would be a deal breaker for me.

I don't think the Nano will have HDMI 2.0 - the chip hasn't changed it all from the Fury X. But as I linked above, there is an adapter in development that should be available soon.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,144
236
116
Well, if the Nano is for HTPC users who also game, HDMI2.0 makes sense....but it also made sense on the Fury X....

Too damn big and too much heat. FuryX overall thermal limit is still too high at 275 watts even if it stays cool and silent with the water cooler. Idle power is also very important and a water cooler probably generate a bit of heat too even if you're not gaming. If you have a big screen TV, Preamp, Receiver, power conditioner, Cable Box, and a 500+ watt HTPC, that's generating ALOT of heat in the cabinet or audio rack that's circulating around there in a very closely spaced area. It would be difficult finding a CPU to pair with the Fury too. Ideally, staying within 200 watt would be nice. Lower power Skylake would be ideal to pair with the Nano...ahh I can't wait. :D
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,144
236
116
Pretty upset project Quantum is only a proof of concept. I wish they did it with 2 fury nano instead and shrunk the whole thing. That would have been ideal for htpc.
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
Too damn big and too much heat. FuryX overall thermal limit is still too high at 275 watts even if it stays cool and silent with the water cooler. Idle power is also very important and a water cooler probably generate a bit of heat too even if you're not gaming. If you have a big screen TV, Preamp, Receiver, power conditioner, Cable Box, and a 500+ watt HTPC, that's generating ALOT of heat in the cabinet or audio rack that's circulating around there in a very closely spaced area. It would be difficult finding a CPU to pair with the Fury too. Ideally, staying within 200 watt would be nice. Lower power Skylake would be ideal to pair with the Nano...ahh I can't wait. :D

Lol....
The only reason Fury X isn't in my HTPC is because of HDMI 2.0. And lol... I have all of that already my friend. Fury X would have done fine. Jesus, I have my server sitting there too you forgot about a server. What are you going to watch just TV from cable lol? A couple of amps too, etc. Fury X is one small part of the equation. Setting an arbitrary 200 W limit? Lol... when my subs are pulling 1000+? What am I worried about Fury X....

That is just a ridiculous reason as to why Fury X couldn't get HDMI 2.0....
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,144
236
116
Lol....
The only reason Fury X isn't in my HTPC is because of HDMI 2.0. And lol... I have all of that already my friend. Fury X would have done fine. Jesus, I have my server sitting there too you forgot about a server. What are you going to watch just TV from cable lol? A couple of amps too, etc. Fury X is one small part of the equation. Setting an arbitrary 200 W limit? Lol... when my subs are pulling 1000+? What am I worried about Fury X....

That is just a ridiculous reason as to why Fury X couldn't get HDMI 2.0....

My Sub pulls 500 watts each but they are on the opposite end of the room so it should be ok. The highest rated item I have on the rack is a sunfire grand cinema amp and a monster power conditioner. It does get pretty warm if I watch a movie so I'm pretty reluctant to dump more power back there. On the audio rack is another old carver amp, a retro record player and cassette player. I don't have a server =p
When I get my HTPC going, it's going to be as small and awesome looking as possible. It's only additional task would be maybe a blue-ray player if I don't end up using a Xbox or PS4. I'm calling it a HTPC but really the only aim is to play game and have it hooked up to a VR device in the future.

I've never done a server before...is it possible to stream 4K media via wireless or would it chew up the LAN bandwidth?
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Freakin yes HDMI 2.0!
This card is perfect if you want a HTPC. Small form factor = high WAF factor. Most of the HTPC case looks freaking ugly though.

I very strongly hope it rivals RuryX in sound or it would be a deal breaker for me.

It isn't perfect though. In a small case HTPC, you'd want a cooling solution that actually vented air.
 

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
there are well ventilated small cases that could house this baby, plus if the rumored power consumption is correct it will indeed be a perfect card for htpc (most cases)
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
My Sub pulls 500 watts each but they are on the opposite end of the room so it should be ok. The highest rated item I have on the rack is a sunfire grand cinema amp and a monster power conditioner. It does get pretty warm if I watch a movie so I'm pretty reluctant to dump more power back there. On the audio rack is another old carver amp, a retro record player and cassette player. I don't have a server =p
When I get my HTPC going, it's going to be as small and awesome looking as possible. It's only additional task would be maybe a blue-ray player if I don't end up using a Xbox or PS4. I'm calling it a HTPC but really the only aim is to play game and have it hooked up to a VR device in the future.

I've never done a server before...is it possible to stream 4K media via wireless or would it chew up the LAN bandwidth?

Worrying about 50 watts on a graphics card when other parts of your system are pulling over 1000+ watts just doesn't make sense lol.....

And 4K BluRays aren't out, what 4K media is out there that is higher quality than a BluRay right now other than raw footatge you shoot yourself.

Fury X Crossfire is something I would be open to in an HTPC if I had the funds easily lol. Really, the whole "I need a tiny HTPC" thing is for people who want their PC to be visible and show it off as a cute cool build. My PC is never shown off to anyone, so how it looks is irrelevant to me. I hide it away, and make sure it's quiet and powerful to drive my graphics.