Monday, August 24th 2015

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Nears Launch, 50% Higher Performance per Watt over Fury X

AMD's ultra-compact graphics card based on its "Fiji" silicon, the Radeon R9 Nano (or R9 Fury-Nano), is nearing its late-August/early-September launch. At its most recent "Hot Chips" presentation, AMD put out more interesting numbers related to the card. To begin with, it lives up to the promise of being faster than the R9 290X, at nearly half its power draw. The R9 Nano has 90% higher performance/Watt over the R9 290X. More importantly, it has about 50% higher performance/Watt over the company's current flagship single-GPU product, the Radeon R9 Fury X. With these performance figures, the R9 Nano will be targeted at compact gaming-PC builds that are capable of 1440p gaming.
Source: Golem.de
Add your own comment

106 Comments on AMD Radeon R9 Nano Nears Launch, 50% Higher Performance per Watt over Fury X

#1
dj-electric
I like the idea, and the R9 NANO is probably my favorite from AMD's show a while ago.
But.

This is not the product AMD needs right now, at all.
We dont need more product that cost 100+$ above the GTX 970 and perform just slightly better. (slideshow shows 30.5FPS for R9 290X and 33FPS for R9 NANO, so... about 390X levels.)
We need a competition that will actually drive the market and get AMD out of its bankrupcy danger.
Posted on Reply
#2
Sony Xperia S
This Thursday, August 27. :)

Can't wait to see what this cutie is capable of. :p
Posted on Reply
#3
tabascosauz
FC4 is a rather demanding game on Tahiti, so the fact that the Nano may be able to achieve significant efficiency boosts there makes the Nano look very appealing indeed.

I hope AMD skimped on neither the Fiji binning nor the vapor chamber, because this card is going to need both.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
It's their loss for being so damn slow with the release of Fiji cards...
Posted on Reply
#6
arbiter
Hrm, so 2-3fps is AMD's idea of significantly faster then 290x. Wonder why when they did power tests they used amd 8350 and then used an i7 for performance test. Something sounds bit fishy there. The performance was done using 290x so 2-3 fps means its pretty much same as 390x version.
Posted on Reply
#7
gaximodo
arbiter, post: 3334556, member: 106403"
Hrm, so 2-3fps is AMD's idea of significantly faster then 290x. Wonder why when they did power tests they used amd 8350 and then used an i7 for performance test. Something sounds bit fishy there. The performance was done using 290x so 2-3 fps means its pretty much same as 390x version.
I guess 8350 will bottleneck all the GPUs. The figures will be a lot closer so they won't be able to claim 'significant faster'.
Posted on Reply
#8
arbiter
gaximodo, post: 3334558, member: 58807"
I guess 8350 will bottleneck all the GPUs. The figures will be a lot closer so they won't be able to claim 'significant faster'.
Part that is most fishey as to why they did it on power test side. It wasn't shock they used intel for performance, even AMD knows their cpu would bottleneck. But odd they did it for power testing maybe doing some trickery. We will find out when independent reviews come out. its AMD doing something like that wouldn't shock me.
Posted on Reply
#9
RejZoR
Well, if it can't push higher framerates, it'll also use less power. It's a very simple thing.
Posted on Reply
#10
Assimilator
Hey look it's another AMD marketing press release that will likely bear zero similarity to actual results achieved by independent third-party reviewers.
Posted on Reply
#11
SonicZap
I'm interested in Fury Nano. Not because I'd buy one, but I want to see the maximum power efficiency that AMD is able to achieve with Fiji. If it beats Maxwell in power efficiency, there might be hope left for Arctic Islands GCN.
Posted on Reply
#12
Furunomoe
I wonder if they will allow the OEMs to do a custom card of this? Single slot R9 Nano would be awesome.
Posted on Reply
#13
arbiter
Furunomoe, post: 3334572, member: 159563"
I wonder if they will allow the OEMs to do a custom card of this? Single slot R9 Nano would be awesome.
Yea no chance for single slot version of this card what so ever.
Posted on Reply
#14
vega22
arbiter, post: 3334575, member: 106403"
Yea no chance for single slot version of this card what so ever.
with the right water loop it is very doable.

ek gear would look great on these.
Posted on Reply
#15
arbiter
marsey99, post: 3334578, member: 41040"
with the right water loop it is very doable.

ek gear would look great on these.
um with water block, single slot 295x2 is do-able
Posted on Reply
#16
Jack1n
Dont really believe anything AMD has to say after Fury.
Posted on Reply
#17
Dieinafire
This may be the last gpu amd comes out with before they go under. I hope it's amazing!
Posted on Reply
#18
currob
Jack1n, post: 3334581, member: 110673"
Dont really believe anything AMD has to say after Fury.
Exactly this ^
Posted on Reply
#19
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Jack1n, post: 3334581, member: 110673"
Dont really believe anything AMD has to say after Fury.
We all know that the AMD PR machine is good at generating hype. I don't trust any internal numbers from AMD because of this.

Better performance per watt than Hawaii, sure. I will laugh when those numbers don't hold up to scrutiny. I would rather wait for HBM 2.0 so we can let all of the early adopters adopts the early problems. :)
Posted on Reply
#20
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
So it still looks like it is slower than 390X. If "Hawaii" is 290X, Nano looks about 5% faster. 390X is about 10% faster than 290X, no?
Posted on Reply
#21
Xaled
When would AMD learn this? DONT RELEASE SOMETHING THAT IS SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE THAN YOUR PREVIOUS PRODUCTS, nobody would buy it, this is a major business mistake that AMD has been doing since bulldozer
Posted on Reply
#22
geon2k2
Actually the whole slide related to performance and performance per watt has a 3 in the tile, which implies that footnote 3 applies to the whole slide.

Also I don't know where you see that part with significantly faster than 290x, they mentioned it will be faster ... not significantly faster.

Still looks like an amazing card ... unfortunately it will probably have a price in the range of the current R9 390x. I would like to see a Fiji based card in the mid range. Maybe with only 2 GB of HBM and 2000 processing units and with a price in the range of R9 285/380.

Either way lets see the price and reviews first, maybe this time it is worth to go over the mid-range budget.
Posted on Reply
#23
Sihastru
Disappointment #HYPE train... coming to a station near you soon... ciuuu... ciuuu!
Posted on Reply
#24
ensabrenoir
..........wow the day is finally here when having a small graphics card dose not negatively effect your e-peen status......and there is an universal "this is gonna be cool" sentiment for AMD.............there is hope yet for man........
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment