Friday, September 4th 2015
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review by TPU...Not
There won't be a Radeon R9 Nano review on TechPowerUp. AMD says that it has too few review samples for the press. When AMD first held up the Radeon R9 Nano at its "Fiji" GPU unveil, to us it came across as the most promising product based on the chip, even more than the R9 Fury series, its dual-GPU variant, and the food-processor-shaped SFF gaming desktop thing. The prospect of "faster than R9 290X at 175W" is what excited us the most, as that would disrupt NVIDIA's GM204 based products. Unfortunately, the most exciting product by AMD also has the least amount of excitement by AMD itself.
The first signs of that are, AMD making it prohibitively expensive at $650, and not putting it in the hands of the press, for a launch-day review. We're not getting one, and nor do some of our friends on either sides of the Atlantic. AMD is making some of its tallest claims with this product, and it's important (for AMD) that some of those claims are put to the test. A validated product could maybe even convince some to reach for their wallets, to pull out $650.
Are we sourgraping? You tell us. We're one of the few sites that give you noise testing by some really expensive and broad-ranged noise-testing equipment, and more importantly, card-only power-draw. Our reviews also grill graphics cards through 22 real-world tests across four resolutions, each, and offer price-performance graphs. When NVIDIA didn't send us a GeForce GTX TITAN-Z sample, we didn't care. We didn't make an announcement like this. At $2,999, it was just a terrible product and we never wished it was part of our graphs. Its competing R9 295X2 could be had under $700, and so it continues to top our performance charts.
The R9 Nano, on the other hand, has the potential for greatness. Never mind the compact board design and its SFF credentials. Pull out this ASIC, put it on a normal 20-25 cm PCB, price it around $350, and dual-slot cooling that can turn its fans off in idle, and AMD could have had a GM204-killing product. Sadly, there's no way for us to test that, either. We can't emulate an R9 Nano on an R9 Fury X. The Nano appears to have a unique power/temperature based throttling algorithm that we can't copy.
"Fiji" is a good piece of technology, but apparently, very little effort is being made to put it into the hands of as many people as possible (and by that we mean consumers). This is an incoherence between what AMD CEO stated at the "Fiji" unveil, and what her company is doing. It's also great disservice to the people who probably stayed up many nights to get the interposer design right, or sailing through uncharted territory with HBM. Oh well.
The first signs of that are, AMD making it prohibitively expensive at $650, and not putting it in the hands of the press, for a launch-day review. We're not getting one, and nor do some of our friends on either sides of the Atlantic. AMD is making some of its tallest claims with this product, and it's important (for AMD) that some of those claims are put to the test. A validated product could maybe even convince some to reach for their wallets, to pull out $650.
The R9 Nano, on the other hand, has the potential for greatness. Never mind the compact board design and its SFF credentials. Pull out this ASIC, put it on a normal 20-25 cm PCB, price it around $350, and dual-slot cooling that can turn its fans off in idle, and AMD could have had a GM204-killing product. Sadly, there's no way for us to test that, either. We can't emulate an R9 Nano on an R9 Fury X. The Nano appears to have a unique power/temperature based throttling algorithm that we can't copy.
"Fiji" is a good piece of technology, but apparently, very little effort is being made to put it into the hands of as many people as possible (and by that we mean consumers). This is an incoherence between what AMD CEO stated at the "Fiji" unveil, and what her company is doing. It's also great disservice to the people who probably stayed up many nights to get the interposer design right, or sailing through uncharted territory with HBM. Oh well.
759 Comments on AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review by TPU...Not
BTW, fyi, the German site PC Games Hardware will get a Nano sample. And people claim that it is one of the best, objective sites.
yeh again i'm Taking the piss
AMD fanboys are more extremist. They always bashing Nvidia for problems but in AMD case they trying to spin it in good light.
Another thought for you. If your intent is to promote AMD then try to conduct yourself a little better if you want people to listen to you at all and buy AMD.
I need to post them somewhere tho, as I'm half serious.. :)
Sadly it's not.
Btw on a side note that reminds me...not badmouthing, but I found out H outsources some of his reviews. (not the right word)
A couple of motherboard tests which I read had dubious overclocking results.....when I asked who tested it he said the review was sent in.. lol I imagine he does the GPU tests tho.
I stopped visiting AT when Tom's bought the site.
There are a little over 650 good reasons they aren't giving this site a card. It will definitely be on the BOTTOM of the performance/dollar chart.
It's sad. I've been humping AMD's leg for almost 20 years now. I mean, honestly, SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS?:laugh::roll::laugh::mad::banghead::cry:
BTW, your post is wonderful. First you accuse the others of attacking and saying that you are tired of that. Then you make two comments full of irony in that same post.
Start including a "performance/cm2" chart!
a.) It runs much more cooler than most AMD chips & it's older brother; Fermi across ALL levels of loads
b.) Despite costing slightly more than a mid-range AMD card, it's a whole lot faster & doesn't hurt your utility bills on a yearly basis
c.) it's a real world performer than a vendor that relies heavily on paper benches where testing methods are irrelevant
d.) All Nvidia cards that has a Boost profile that hardly reach it's thermal ceiling of 82C & runs on stable, consistent boosted clocks well below the limit unlike AMD where it needs to throttle down a lot to prevent overheating.
e.) *not showing off* My main rig hardly eats 350W, 2nd one is barely 270W & NAS Box that can play MOBA games hardly eat 150W off the walls. On idle? all barely use 30W off the wall. Wattage is measured by whole system, not the card.
So tell me am I a blind supporter of the Green Camp since Day 1 OR you're just plain jelly that those who knows what's a good card & spend their money on them is pissing you off. Perhaps the whole Intel x NVIDIA setup rigs is making you cringe, whether it's single GPU or those high end SLI ones complete with custom watercooling kit from brands like EKWB built by renowned companies like Cyberpower PC, ORIGIN PC & Scan Computers?