AMD Radeon R9 Nano

[happy medium]

175 watt TDP..?
AMD Radeon R9 NANO Unveiled – Half the Size, Half the Power

AMD also launched the Radeon R9 NANO graphics card which is Fiji based with half the size of R9 290X and has half the power of the Radeon R9 290X. It is an impressive feat and shows the scalibility of the Fiji GPU architecture. The card is based on a significant cut down version of the Fiji GPU but is only 15 centimeters long and is powered by a single fan which shows that it is an extremely power efficient graphics card. The surprising thing about this little card is that it has a 6 inches in length yet is faster than Hawaii which is fused on the R9 390 series and 290 series cards. It comes with a 175W thermal solution and is powered by a single 8-Pin power connector.


Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-f...d-small-form-factor-powerhouse/#ixzz3dGunmnUE

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-f...ered-649-priced-small-form-factor-powerhouse/

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Might be perfect for an htpc

 

[cbn]

That is one small card, and uses 1/2 the power of the 290x, yet it is faster.

Nice HTPC card!

And no, this is NOT a rumor.

Nice card!

P.S. If this is fabbed at GF, then I expect it will eventually replace some other AMD cards fabbed at TSMC.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Looks pretty cool (both figuratively, and literally). Price might still be a bit out of my range.

Can you CF them?

 

[el etro]

Looks pretty cool (both figuratively, and literally). Price might still be a bit out of my range.

Can you CF them?

Since it haves XDMA, i think yes.

 

[HurleyBird]

This is definitely the most interesting card in the line-up, as far a serious effort to take back market share is concerned. It will come down to three things still:

a) that the tiny cooler isn't too noisy
b) that there's enough stock
c) good pricing

Very much looking forward to seeing how Nano compares with Maxwell when it comes to performance-per-watt. My guess is around equal, but better at 4K. Of course it did take a massive die clocked low with a new memory tech to achieve.

 

[AnandThenMan]

This is definitely the most interesting card in the line-up,

I feel the same way, Nano is an interesting card (also beautiful looking) could prove to be very popular.

 

[96Firebird]

If it has HDMI 2.0, could be a great HTPC card.

 

[Zstream]

Wtb this soooo bad... What's the rumored pricing again? Do we have to wait till summer for the pricing?

 

[JDG1980]

Yeah, I don't want a hot and power-hungry top-of-the-line card, but Fury Nano looks like it might actually be a nice option. Based on what's known so far, my guess is that it will have 3200 shaders (50 CUs), a clock of roughly 850 MHz, and beat R9 290X's performance by about 10%-20%. Assuming a maximum power draw of 175W as specified, this means it would beat the GTX 980 in perf/watt, and be the most power-efficient card currently on the market! Since raw performance would be about on par with the GTX 980, I would expect a $399 price tag.

Why AMD even bothered with the Hawaii rebrands, inflating the RAM size and price tag, is beyond me. Are they designed to make Fury cards look like a better deal in comparison? Did they really have so many Hawaii wafers left over from Rory Read's era that they are willing to try just about anything to shove them out the door? Or is someone in AMD's marketing department just smoking crack?

The one thing that concerns me is the driver documentation released today, which indicates that HEVC may be a Windows 10 only option. If true, that's a deal breaker. For my next build, I want hardware HEVC decoding, and I'll still be using Windows 7 (not at all impressed with the changes since then).

 

[AnandThenMan]

Why would you use Windows 7 with a card that is designed for DX12?

 

[BryanC]

Yeah, I don't want a hot and power-hungry top-of-the-line card, but Fury Nano looks like it might actually be a nice option. Based on what's known so far, my guess is that it will have 3200 shaders (50 CUs), a clock of roughly 850 MHz, and beat R9 290X's performance by about 10%-20%. Assuming a maximum power draw of 175W as specified, this means it would beat the GTX 980 in perf/watt, and be the most power-efficient card currently on the market! Since raw performance would be about on par with the GTX 980, I would expect a $399 price tag.

Why AMD even bothered with the Hawaii rebrands, inflating the RAM size and price tag, is beyond me. Are they designed to make Fury cards look like a better deal in comparison? Did they really have so many Hawaii wafers left over from Rory Read's era that they are willing to try just about anything to shove them out the door? Or is someone in AMD's marketing department just smoking crack?

The one thing that concerns me is the driver documentation released today, which indicates that HEVC may be a Windows 10 only option. If true, that's a deal breaker. For my next build, I want hardware HEVC decoding, and I'll still be using Windows 7 (not at all impressed with the changes since then).

I wonder how many Fury cards AMD can produce per month. The stacked memory may make quantities somewhat limited. Which might explain the 390 cards...

Or maybe not, I really don't know.

 

[JDG1980]

Why would you use Windows 7 with a card that is designed for DX12?

Because I don't care about AAA gaming. I'm planning to run a PLP configuration with a central 40" 4K monitor in landscape mode flanked by two Dell U2713HM 27" 1440p monitors in portrait mode. The most GPU-demanding applications I'll be running are madVR (which requires a lot of shader power to do 1080p60->4K upscaling at good settings - I tested my Pitcairn card on a smaller 4K monitor and it isn't enough), and some newer emulators (Dolphin and PCSX2); Dragon Quest VIII under PCSX2 uses quite a bit of GPU power when you run at 4x-8x native resolution.

So for my next build I want something powerful enough to handle this (I'm still not 100% sure that GTX 960 is strong enough), with enough RAM (at 4K, Pitcairn's 2GB is maxed out by just Firefox + MPC-HC!), and it needs to have 3x DisplayPort connectors, and I want HEVC hardware decoding for future-proofing. Given the choice, I'd prefer a Quadro/FirePro card to a consumer grade option (my next system will be a Xeon workstation), but Nvidia doesn't currently have a Quadro GM206 card. Maybe AMD will do a FirePro version of the Fiji Nano, and maybe HEVC decoding will be made to work through DXVA on Windows 7 eventually on that card. If so, then it would probably be my choice. If not, then I am probably going to wind up going with a GTX 960 4GB with Arctic Accelero S3 cooler as a stop-gap solution, and then upgrade when FinFET+ midrange professional cards become available.

 

[Blue_Max]

 

[IntelUser2000]

Lisa said: AMD Radeon Graphics ‏@AMDRadeon
AMD Radeon R9 Nano brings more performance than a Radeon R9 290X, and at 50% the size and 50% the power, it’s 2X as efficient.

3072 GCN core with 4GB of HBM at 145W TDP?

2x perf/watt
50% power

Equal performance. Lisa doesn't know basic arithmetic.

If leaks by AMD were accurate, Fury X offers 60% performance gain over the 290X. That's with 45% extra SPs and TMUs. So the rest of the gains must be due to HBM.

It won't need same compute power to outperform the R9 290X. That means either lowering of clocks or less SPs. Scaling down ALWAYS favors perf/watt which explains the perf/watt improvement compared to 290X going from 1.5x with regular Fury and 2x with Fury Nano.

 

[AnandThenMan]

2x perf/watt
50% power

Equal performance. Lisa doesn't know basic arithmetic.

She actually said Nano is quite a bit faster than the 290x.

 

[Silverforce11]

Significantly faster.

But significant is a very subjective description, 10% could be significant for some for example.

Either way, it's cleaner than being on stage and saying its "two point two five times more power efficient".

 

[LTC8K6]

She actually said Nano is quite a bit faster than the 290x.

She meant quite a bit faster than 390X. :whiste:

But if it's faster, more efficient, smaller, and close in price, why buy a 390X?

 

[IntelUser2000]

She actually said Nano is quite a bit faster than the 290x.

Just saying her comments are contradicting themselves. You can't have it faster than 290X, have 2x perf/watt and use 1/2 the power.

The 2x perf/watt is going to be used to reduce power to 1/2 in that case and end up same performance.

Get it now?

 

[AnandThenMan]

I get the essence of what she was talking about and will wait for professional reviews to see exactly what Nano is all about. I don't feel the need to pick apart every word and phrase Dr. Su said on stage.

 

[Shehriazad]

She meant quite a bit faster than 390X. :whiste:

But if it's faster, more efficient, smaller, and close in price, why buy a 390X?

Some people might be in need of 8GB Vram but can't afford to dish out a billion for a Titan? ^^

That would be one scenario...To this day I also still see a ton of clueless people using Vram as an actual performance metric and buying based on it....there are actually people who go out of their way to buy a 4GB card over a 2GB card "because it's clearly better"...only to realize at home that a GTX 750 Ti with 4GB is quite useless to them. (as an example)

390X will draw people that have money but no knowledge (or can simply not afford a 980 Ti/Titan X)....Nano will draw the people that have the money and some knowledge/idea where they want to go with that money...oh and people that want to hop on the "new tech" train but don't have pockets that are quite as deep...which would be me. I'm totally gonna throw a Nano in one of my cubes for my Skylake build.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, a 290/390X also doesn't seem to benefit much from 8gb of VRAM.

Also, the nano is probably going to be AWOL for a while, so unless you can wait, you will have to buy something else.

 

[NTMBK]

I sincerely doubt that this will be priced to compete with the 960. If this thing has world beating perf/W, they will try to charge a premium for it. "The fastest card you can fit in a Steambox!" And let's face it, it's still a massive die, with HBM attached. There's a limit to how low you can price it and still turn a profit.

My guess is that it will cost the same as Fury (non X).

 

[flopper]

She meant quite a bit faster than 390X. :whiste:

But if it's faster, more efficient, smaller, and close in price, why buy a 390X?

$429 390x
$500 nano seems plausible.

 

[LTC8K6]

$429 390x
$500 nano seems plausible.

Exactly. What fool would buy the recycled 290X?

I think AMD is abandoning those last gen cards.