Fury Nano is Full Fiji

[richaron]

I suspect that you can't make an air cooled mini-itx full performance Fiji card, though. Probably cannot cool it, despite having PCB real estate to spare.

I'm not sure there is really a whole lot of board real estate difference, though.

http://cdn.overclock.net/9/9d/900x900px-LL-9d3ac8fc_IMAG08711.jpeg

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/06/DSC02004-980x653.jpg

This thread has been 3 pages long and you only just now understand that Nano will be downclocked from the "full performance" Fury X? The sweet spot in efficiency (Nano's niche) is of course at a lower clock. We've all been saying as much, so I can only see your negative post as biased.

<rant>"Full performance" is a pretty vague term though, especially if the chip is more efficient at a different frequency. Personally I wouldn't call a maximum overclocked chip using double the power "full performance", because it's not using the chip as it was designed. "Max performance" maybe...</rant>

As far as PCB usage is concerned I suppose that's up to the design engineers. In the pics you posted the HBM design has far better power circuitry in similar sized card.

In the end, all we know is that Nano's design goals are to be small & efficient; plus they're working with Fiji/HBM which has a much smaller PCB footprint than any competing product.

 

[LTC8K6]

This thread has been 3 pages long and you only just now understand that Nano will be downclocked from the "full performance" Fury X? The sweet spot in efficiency (Nano's niche) is of course at a lower clock. We've all been saying as much, so I can only see your negative post as biased.

<rant>"Full performance" is a pretty vague term though, especially if the chip is more efficient at a different frequency. Personally I wouldn't call a maximum overclocked chip using double the power "full performance", because it's not using the chip as it was designed. "Max performance" maybe...</rant>

As far as PCB usage is concerned I suppose that's up to the design engineers. In the pics you posted the HBM design has far better power circuitry in similar sized card.

In the end, all we know is that Nano's design goals are to be small & efficient; plus they're working with Fiji/HBM which has a much smaller PCB footprint than any competing product.

Yes, I'm fully aware of what Nano is.

Not sure why you would ask.

Just because Nano is currently designed more towards efficiency, that doesn't mean it's necessarily impossible to have such a card designed for performance.

I just suspect that you can't do that with air, at that card size, at this time.

I could be wrong.

 

[richaron]

Yes, I'm fully aware of what Nano is.

Not sure why you would ask.

Just because Nano is currently designed more towards efficiency, that doesn't mean it's necessarily impossible to have such a card designed for performance.

I just suspect that you can't do that with air, at that card size, at this time.

I could be wrong.

Sorry, it seemed odd that you only just realized Nano would be less powerful than Fury X... My bad? It appeared more likely you were deliberately painting Nano in a bad light using an overwhelmingly negative description for what most people consider "optimized for efficiency". Which is what we've been talking about the whole time.

Yes, it will be slower than Fury X. QED

And I still don't know what you mean by "performance". One could easily argue anything clocked above the peak performance/power frequency is overclocked. But I'd argue all cards are designed for "performance". However you paint it your complaints seem a bit vague.

 

[darckhart]

nano + EK FCWB (hopefully) + all clocks back to furyX spec = FTW! (hopefully)

at least that's what I'm waiting for anyway...

 

[cbrunny]

nano + EK FCWB (hopefully) + all clocks back to furyX spec = FTW! (hopefully)

at least that's what I'm waiting for anyway...

will it have enough power though? Is it 1 x 8 pin or 2 x 8 pin?

edit:

1 x 8 pin - is that enough to get clocks back to Fiji X territory?

 

[tential]

will it have enough power though? Is it 1 x 8 pin or 2 x 8 pin?

edit:

1 x 8 pin - is that enough to get clocks back to Fiji X territory?

Might be the reason why they only have 1 x 8 so that it can't use the same power necessary to get it to fury x levels. Nano + water + enough power would just be a cheaper way to get fury x for those who may have a custom loop or something.

Just my 2 cents I'm not water cooling or power expert.

 

[cbrunny]

custom pcb can do it?

 

[RampantAndroid]

The Fury X has no third party designs. Will the Nano allow third party designs? If not, the Nano will always have the potential...but not the ability to hit Fury X performance.

 

[3DVagabond]

The Fury X has no third party designs. Will the Nano allow third party designs? If not, the Nano will always have the potential...but not the ability to hit Fury X performance.

With a single 8pin I'm not sure it'll have the power circuitry to match Fury X.

 

[NTMBK]

will it have enough power though? Is it 1 x 8 pin or 2 x 8 pin?

edit:

1 x 8 pin - is that enough to get clocks back to Fiji X territory?

Sincerely doubt it. It probably also has lower rated VRMs, as those will be more efficient.

 

[RampantAndroid]

With a single 8pin I'm not sure it'll have the power circuitry to match Fury X.

That's the point I'm getting at - if no 3rd party board designs, then it's pretty limited.

 

[3DVagabond]

That's the point I'm getting at - if no 3rd party board designs, then it's pretty limited.

Again, it's likely to be limited. We can't say for certain. It is a specific design though for best efficiency. Not for mad O/C'ing.

Seems strange to get something because it's efficient and then O/C the snot out of it. :\

 

[MeldarthX]

Again, it's likely to be limited. We can't say for certain. It is a specific design though for best efficiency. Not for mad O/C'ing.

Seems strange to get something because it's efficient and then O/C the snot out of it. :\

*coughs I did that with *8320E* its sitting at 5 GHZ There will always be some of us that will want to see just how far we can push something...

Nano will be the same - I have a feeling original Nano will be ref; and later on there most likely be aftermarket Nano's......that's just a feeling though

 

[LTC8K6]

nano + EK FCWB (hopefully) + all clocks back to furyX spec = FTW! (hopefully)

at least that's what I'm waiting for anyway...

What is the cost vs simply buying a Fury X?

 

[Greenlepricon]

What is the cost vs simply buying a Fury X?

Probably no better unless you were going to stick a custom cooler on the Fury X to begin with. Might be a decent option for people with custom loops already set up?

 

[railven]

Probably no better unless you were going to stick a custom cooler on the Fury X to begin with. Might be a decent option for people with custom loops already set up?

That sounded like the end goal, but if these things are gonna be stuck as a plain wattage restricted version - can't do it.

Man, that sort of does suck for people with custom loops IF the Nano is power restricted.
Fury X has no non-ref model so got to pony up for the CLC premium price
Fury is cut down version
Nano is [possibly] power restricted.

Oh well, people with loops got money! Pony up the cash!