5% faster than a 980 @ 1440p? At $650, I guess you really do need to pay extra for an mITX build...
Ya, but this is an enthusiast forum so let's see more details:
4K
44% faster than a GTX970 Mini
14% faster than a GTX980 OC
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...st/3/#abschnitt_ultrahdtests_in_3840__2160_4k
1440P High Quality
35% faster than GTX970 Mini
6% faster than GTX980 OC
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...t/4/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet
I recall 100s of forum members across TPU, TechReport, HardOCP, AT, etc. spouting non-sense how AMD's 30% faster than GTX970 Mini numbers were marketing BS, how GTX970 could easily overclock to Nano's speeds awe, how the Nano will lose to a GTX980....blah blah blah. How many of those sites and their resepctive forum members are man enough to admit they were wrong? Instead the focus is now shifting to poor price/performance which let's face it was never in debate. It's understood that for someone who isn't facing space constraints, cards like R9 390/970/980/980Ti/Fury and AMD's own Fury X all offer superior price/performance over the Nano.
Now that the Nano proved all of them wrong, the only argument left is price/performance. I myself think price/performance is a critical metric and for that reason I don't recommend cards like the Nano or the Titan series unless there is specific use case. BUT the same people who bashed the Nano prior to reviews never prioritized price/performance for many previous GPU generations, especially in recent times when it came to R9 290/290X vs. 780/780Ti or 290/290X vs. 970/980 or R9 295X2 vs. 980 or R9 270/270X vs. 750/750Ti or R9 290 vs. GTX960 4GB or R9 280X vs. GTX960 2GB. Some of the posters who ripped the Nano are the same people who bought a GTX980 over GTX970/R9 290/290X/295X2. The type of gamer doesn't at all look credible when promoting price/performance as the key metric to bash the Nano on when the same person owns or purchased a near-launch date GTX980 (or in the past owned launch-date GTX680 or 770 or 780, etc.). That's pure hypocrisy and stuff like that is what gets noticed.
If someone criticized cards like $650 GTX780 or $1000 Titan / Titan X or $550 GTX980 or $150 GTX750ti or $200 GTX960 2GB for being overpriced, then at least they are being consistent in criticizing the Nano as well. Can sites like HardOCP or TechReport or their cesspool of blind forum loyalists that follow Green claim the same objective criticism for certain overpriced NV products noted above? No, they cannot. So in conclusion, price/performance is simply being used as a 'scape-goat' metric to downplay what the Nano has accomplished when this metric was hardly used to promote any AMD products since HD5000 series by the very same sites and various forum members that have been bashing the Nano. That's the irony here and frankly blatant hypocrisy by some.
HardOCP is a failure of a website in itself for many reasons that I could write an essay but they never criticized the Titan / Titan X for their awful price/performance. Even in their forums they tried to claim how the Titan is still the fastest card while after-market 980Ti cards have long beaten the Titan X in stock and overclocked states unless one water-cools the TX and custom mods the BIOS. Yet when the Nano is the
fastest &
smallest miniITX card in the world (i.e., a niche sector just like the Titan X is), suddenly price/performance is the KEY metric? :biggrin: What a joke. :hmm: This is something sites like TechReport or HardOCP do not understand -- they are not consistent wrt to any metric. You never know what metric matters next month over there -- is it perf/watt, is it VRAM capacity, is it overclocking headroom, is it frame times, is it price/performance cuz those sites have no consistency. For example, TechReport ripped HD7000 series for worse frame latency but ignored this issue on Fermi cards. When HD7000 series actually surpassed GTX600/700 series in frame times, those sites never revisited the issue to look at the updated driver performance. Much like TechReport never looked at Fury/Fury X CF XDMA frame times but sites like TechSpot did. If a site lacks consistency in their methodologies, over time this becomes a trend and it's impossible to take any site like that professionally or seriously.
The beauty of the Nano is that it exposed the blatant bias of many reviewers and their respective forum members publicly. On the positive side, the Nano could be the start of a trend for even smaller consumer miniITX cases. These style cases could gain even more popularity as HBM makes its way to cheaper GPUs with next generation as Pascal/Arctic Islands generations should have HBM2 GPUs in the $200-400 price brackets as well.
Last week,
Lian-Li launched the PC-Q21 that can only accommodate 170mm GPUs, which means no GTX980/Fury X/980Ti can even fit.
The Nano was never meant to be a price/performance leader but a very niche product as a showpiece for what's to come in the future. Sites like HardOCP could have easily recognized that, reviewed it objectively and commented that it's a bad price/performance value for miniITX cases that can fit Fury X or GTX980Ti, etc. but instead these sites acted childishly, forever undermining their professional credibility, if there was ever any to begin with after they started shoving GW titles in reviews and blaming AMD for the poor performance with SLI or GW features. :sneaky:
Most importantly, with sites like AT, Guru3D, Computerbase.de, PCGameshardware.de, Sweclockers, Hardware.fr, etc. offering so much information, do we feel like we lost a lot of key valuable information without TechReport and HardOCP reviews?
i've read lots of reviews of the f9 Nano and i am really interested in it. i would like to know if it would work with Asrock 990FX Extreme9 Motherboard, AMD FX 9370 CPU with Patriot 8GB PC3 12800 DDR3 Memory and Windows 10.
For your CPU platform, cards like GTX970/R9 290/R9 290X/390 are a better fit. Don't overspend on a $650 GPU with your CPU as many times you will be bottlenecked. You can grab an R9 290 for $245 or wait for a deal on a 390/970 this holiday season as there is bound to be a $260-280 deal on one of those.