The Fury Nano Thread

[3DVagabond]

Yeah. Due to the placement of the power connector, it's actually a longer card than the Fury X when you compare both in a watercooled build. I guess if you want a really efficient watercooled build?

The Nano is smaller than Fury.

 

[Elixer]

From Anandtech's review of Nano, i see small performance difference between Nano and 970 Mini at 1080p. Who the hell will buy this card if want to play games at 1080p in an mini itx case when 970 mini is half the price for about 10% less performance at 1080p?
However if someone wants to play at 4k for some reason in a mini itx case then one Nano isn't going to be enough anyways for 60fps. You would need two which you can't do as mini itx mobos don't support two video cards not to mention $1300 price tag for two of them.
Looks like a lose lose situation for AMD.

Well, it depends... the Nano is full 4GB, while the 970's 4GB is partitioned into 2 memory pools.
Nano (heck, all GCN cards) will do better with async compute for DX12.
Nano also is good with openCL related things.

970 is less than a Nano is about the only plus, but because of the partitioned memory pool, nobody knows how much nvidia will support this in the future.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, it depends... the Nano is full 4GB, while the 970's 4GB is partitioned into 2 memory pools.
Nano (heck, all GCN cards) will do better with async compute for DX12.
Nano also is good with openCL related things.

970 is less than a Nano is about the only plus, but because of the partitioned memory pool, nobody knows how much nvidia will support this in the future.

I can't think of a good reason to pay double for 10-15% more performance, though.

Certainly a few people will.

 

[3DVagabond]

I can't think of a good reason to pay double for 10-15% more performance, though.

Certainly a few people will.

Cards like Nano are overkill for 1080 in most cases anyway. It's not really the res it's designed for.

 

[Techhog]

The Nano is smaller than Fury.

I thought that the length added by the 8-pin connector would put it over. It might if you don't have flat cables.

 

[flopper]

I can't think of a good reason to pay double for 10-15% more performance, though.

Certainly a few people will.

Now you can go 1440p or even 4k with your mini itx build thats what the nano allows you to do. The 970 wont. 4k glory with nano amazing

 

[AtenRa]

I can't think of a good reason to pay double for 10-15% more performance, though.

Certainly a few people will.

GTX970 to GTX980 performance is 15-20%
you paid 66% more ($330 vs $550)

GTX970 to Fury Nano performance is 10-15% at 1080p, 30% at 1440p and 4K and could be even higher with DX-12.
You pay 100% more ($330 vs $650)

From an NVIDIA point of view, its perfectly OK. :whiste:

But if you want an SFF card for 1080p you could also get the R9 380 mini at 40% less than GTX970.

 

[guskline]

This thread is getting interesting. Nano is CLEARLY a niche product. If space is an issue buy it instead of the Fury X; however, if space is not an issue I would buy the Fury X.

Nvidia has the GTX980TI for almost the same price BUT a much bigger card.

I also agree that if you are running 1080P and are unlikely to ever use 4k and need a new video card why pay $650 for one?

In my opinion AMD's real victory with Nano is they have kept the price high, have people buzzing about it and from my review of Newegg actually have some in stock.

Also, AMD, has hit back Nvidia in the mini gpu market with the undisputed champion.

I suspect Nvidia, if it wanted could shrink the GTX980TI to compete but the bottom line profit just isn't big enough.

I own 2 custom watercooled units below which obviously I don't lug around to LAN parties. If I was to build a mini Skylake unit for gaming at LANs the Nano would definitely be in the picture.

 

[AtenRa]

For those that want to see how the Fury NANO is performing inside a very small SFF case against GTX 970 Mini and R9 380 itx.

Original German url

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...#diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance

Google translate

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2015-09%2Famd-radeon-r9-nano-test%2F9%2F%23diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance&edit-text=

That commands a high price no matter how anyone will try to downplay it :whiste:

 

[Erenhardt]

For those that want to see how the Fury NANO is performing inside a very small SFF case against GTX 970 Mini and R9 380 itx.

Original German url

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...#diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance

Google translate

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2015-09%2Famd-radeon-r9-nano-test%2F9%2F%23diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance&edit-text=

That commands a high price no matter how anyone will try to downplay it :whiste:

Wow, That is almost 60% faster than 970. I guess price/perf looks now a lot better for nano

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow, That is almost 60% faster than 970. I guess price/perf looks now a lot better for nano

50 or 60% faster is a different story...

EDIT: it would be, with playable frame rates...

 

[96Firebird]

For those that want to see how the Fury NANO is performing inside a very small SFF case against GTX 970 Mini and R9 380 itx.

Original German url

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-09/...#diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance

Google translate

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2015-09%2Famd-radeon-r9-nano-test%2F9%2F%23diagramm-r9-nano-im-itx-gehaeuse-performance&edit-text=

That commands a high price no matter how anyone will try to downplay it :whiste:

I'm confused... Does it say what game and resolution those horrible FPS were obtained from? Am I missing it?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm confused... Does it say what game and resolution those horrible FPS were obtained from? Am I missing it?

I didn't look. I never thought they would all be unplayable numbers...

 

[LTC8K6]

Why would the specially binned Nano chips stay in stock so much better than the regular binned Fury X chips?

Or is it too early to wonder about that?

 

[tential]

Why would the specially binned Nano chips stay in stock so much better than the regular binned Fury X chips?

Or is it too early to wonder about that?

What's the demand for Nano like right now? It's had a lot of backlash against it from more casual forums I follow after the price was announced.

Neogaf is a great example:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1102671&page=2
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1109897

The interest in the card is insanely low after the price was announced most people aren't like us who will also read every review, and talk about the performance. They moved on to new things coming out like games and what not.

We'll see just how many people purchase the Nano, but I think these products will take off far more once there are smaller cases, and once Nvidia has a competing product.

Right now, it's just a limbo land card that fits a small niche. I'm certainly interested in how this niche develops that's for sure.

 

[alcoholbob]

Why would the specially binned Nano chips stay in stock so much better than the regular binned Fury X chips?

Or is it too early to wonder about that?

Probably because it fails at it's advertised goals.

It claims 175W TDP when it actuality its a 215W card at stock settings. In comparison the GTX 980 claims 175W TDP and in actuality is a 170-180W card.

Secondly it's only about 2-4% faster than a stock GTX 980, but consumes 23% more power.

Thirdly it doesn't really fit HTPCs since it's really too loud. It's louder than the NVTTM cooler, which IMO is already too loud for a silent build. The Nano needs a larger heatsink so it can get away with a quieter fan curve.

IMO a fully unlocked air cooled Fiji with 275W TDP would be more interesting.

Basically it works for 1 build: a SFF case that for some reason can't fit a reference 10.1 inch GTX 980 (pretty unusual. Most SFF cases that can't handle a reference 980 also can't handle the R9 Nano). You don't care about noise or power, but you want the performance of a GTX 980.

 

[SimianR]

Why would the specially binned Nano chips stay in stock so much better than the regular binned Fury X chips?

Or is it too early to wonder about that?

Because the nano is not a binned chip.

https://community.amd.com/thread/187797

There has been some misconception out there that the Nano is an uber binned part. Actually, both Nano and Fury X share the same ASIC configuration. What differs is the audience and form factor the products are targeted for.

 

[LTC8K6]

Because the nano is not a binned chip.

Then why aren't more Fury X cards available? :biggrin:

It makes no sense at all to me, this AMD Fury launch, but I don't sell video cards...

 

[3DVagabond]

Then why aren't more Fury X cards available? :biggrin:

It makes no sense at all to me, this AMD Fury launch, but I don't sell video cards...

Let's assume we had 50 people who are going to buy either a Fury X or a Nano. Let's ask you if you were one of them, which would you choose? I think probably ~90% are going to choose the Fury X. I know I would.

I'm not trying to build the smallest PC possible. For me the Fury X will fit just fine. I would never buy a case to house a high performance gaming rig that wouldn't have room for the Futy X, the Rad, and also at least one other 120mm or greater exhaust location. So, I think we have a card that has a very limited market. If it was cheaper, which is what many who showed initial interest thought, then that would be different. At the same price though, the fury X is going to have much higher demand.

 

[Seba]

Then maybe the purpose of Nano was to make Fury X look attractive (by comparison).

 

[3DVagabond]

Then maybe the purpose of Nano was to make Fury X look attractive (by comparison).

You aren't being serious, are you? An awful lot of engineering for a decoy model. Remember, AMD is run by engineers. I'm sure they are very proud of the perf/W and perf/inch.

 

[William Gaatjes]

How big will the odds will be that AMD releases a lower cost fury card with only 3/4 of the 4096 shaders enabled (3072) and with 3GB ? And how much will that cost ? Would it have any existence in the current ecosystem of available videocards ?

 

[Qwertilot]

Probably nil I'd think?

Too close to both the die shrunk generation at one end and (especially) to the (re ) launch of the 3xx stuff at the other to make any sense.

 

[Techhog]

It claims 175W TDP when it actuality its a 215W card at stock settings.

Which review measured the thermal output?

 

[railven]

Then why aren't more Fury X cards available? :biggrin:

It makes no sense at all to me, this AMD Fury launch, but I don't sell video cards...

It's super low niche purpose? It's cost to performance versus Fury X/980 Ti? It's coil whine?

Outside of building a case the size of a binder, Fury Nano seems like wasted silicon. If they rot on shelves, those are Fury X people would/could be buying.

Welps, guess it's time to wait for 16nm for camp AMD. Outside of innovative designs, Fury has felt lack luster as a product.