Tuesday, August 25th 2015
AMD Radeon R9 Nano Core Configuration Detailed
AMD's upcoming mini-ITX friendly graphics card, the Radeon R9 Nano, which boasts of a typical board power of just 175W, is not a heavily stripped-down R9 Fury X, as was expected. The card will feature the full complement of GCN compute units physically present on the "Fiji" silicon, and in terms of specifications, is better loaded than even the R9 Fury. Specifications sheet of the R9 Nano leaked to the web, revealing that the card will feature all 4,096 stream processors physically present on the chip, along with 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It will feature 4 GB of memory across the chip's 4096-bit HBM interface.
In terms of clock speeds, the R9 Nano isn't too far behind the R9 Fury X on paper - its core is clocked up to 1000 MHz, with its memory ticking at 500 MHz (512 GB/s). So how does it get down to 175W typical board power, from the 275W of the R9 Fury X? It's theorized that AMD could be using an aggressive power/temperature based clock-speed throttle. The resulting performance is 5-10% higher than the Radeon R9 290X, while never breaching a power target. Korean tech blog DGLee posted pictures of an R9 Nano taken apart. Its PCB is smaller than even that of the R9 Fury X, and makes do with a slimmer 4+2 phase VRM, than the 6+2 phase VRM found on the R9 Fury X.
Sources:
VideoCardz, IYD.kr
In terms of clock speeds, the R9 Nano isn't too far behind the R9 Fury X on paper - its core is clocked up to 1000 MHz, with its memory ticking at 500 MHz (512 GB/s). So how does it get down to 175W typical board power, from the 275W of the R9 Fury X? It's theorized that AMD could be using an aggressive power/temperature based clock-speed throttle. The resulting performance is 5-10% higher than the Radeon R9 290X, while never breaching a power target. Korean tech blog DGLee posted pictures of an R9 Nano taken apart. Its PCB is smaller than even that of the R9 Fury X, and makes do with a slimmer 4+2 phase VRM, than the 6+2 phase VRM found on the R9 Fury X.
101 Comments on AMD Radeon R9 Nano Core Configuration Detailed
Lower temperatures have positive effect: Theoretically true, but a non-point. Cards without extreme overclocking generally have fans and TIM fail before thermal degredation. Additionally, you could theoretically clock you GPU at 200 MHz and decrease power consumption drastically. You'd have a GPU that might well last you your entire life. Of course, that'd be stupid. After a few years GPU performance is dramatically better. Additionally, under clocking would mean your card can't really run any modern games, but superior users have imagination, no. All they need is a text based RPG and they can imagine the rest of it. Kinda seems like cards are clocked such that performance is as good as possible, with the intended lifetime before most cards die being 3-5 years. Overclockers might burn through that lifetime faster, but the replacement cycle generally reaps cards before physics.
You have "better points" than me: In what strange world do you live? Perhaps it's different, where the physical laws of the universe are somehow fundamentally different. Cooling with water is not better than cooling with air, because it's the same physical process. An area of higher thermal energy has a fluid of lower thermal energy pass over it. Due primarily to conductive transference, a part of the thermal energy is transferred to the fluid, and the fluid is moved from the object. The things that influence how much energy is transferred is the thermal capacity of the fluid, the surface area of contact, and the velocity the fluid is flowing. As such, given enough time and resources I could design an air cooler that beats any water cooler on the market. This is physics in action, and your statement about water is better than air demonstrates you are either ignorant or an idiot. Hopefully the former, but given our past discourse the later.
You want something better: Yeah, so do I. I want real engineers to have a crack at the Fury, and have them show us what it could be. By your logic, once a single car is put out on the market we should be done. No SUVs, no trucks, no motorcycles, we only need a motorized one seat car. That's limiting the playing field, because you're too stubborn or have something up your sleeve that you aren't sharing. In the case of the former, you're killing potential sales with inflexibility. In the case of the later, you are trying to demonstrate how clever you are by lopping of the end of your nose. Stupidity through and through. Or perhaps I'm reading this point wrong.
Maybe your logic is that we only need one video card from each team. Nobody wants the 960, 970, 280, 380, 390, 930, or the plethora of other cards. We only need the 980 and Fury competing. Everyone playing PC games should own one of these two cards, and the day they are released every other card should automatically combust. Heck, we only need one card from each team. Let's all make our computers shoot us, should the Steam survey detect anything but the latest piece of hardware in our system.
No matter how I look at your point, it is backwards. Choices are demonstrably what consumers want, and choices actually make things sell. Market research proved this year ago. If you don't agree, walk down a grocery store pasta aisle, and tell me how many brands have only one formulation. How many have just chunky, just smooth, or even just extra thick. None. There is no perfect pasta sauce, and there should be no perfect Fury. You should choose the one that best fits you. AMD is taking this choice away, and it is stupid.
Let's be frank. You've demonstrated unflinching loyalty to a brand that has not earned it. You've demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of physics, so much that your understanding of anything must first be given as a matter of faith. You've dismissed accurate criticism, because in your own head there is one right answer, and you always have it. You've done all this completely unflinchingly, and without ever admitting to the vast gulf between your knowledge and abilities. I can't even begin to ascribe anything to you but an unfounded zealotry that could potentially make a suicide bomber slightly jealous.
Realizing that this is inflammatory, perhaps I should end here. You have demonstrated almost no reasonable opinions, and when asked where you come from you wave your hands in the air and call anyone asking questions an idiot. Please, peddle your brand of crap elsewhere. I can take Nvidiots. I can take die hard members of the Red team. I can even stand members of the Intel superior race. What I can't take is people who won't admit they are wrong, and those people who when confronted with their error fling crap at anyone who pointed it out. You are a member of the group of people I despise.
Of all the words I typed into that thread, all of them were wasted. It's akin to arguing with someone behind a soundproof wall. He doesn't understand anything that you say, but the bullshit that flows from him is endless.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with the thread title, so I digress. :)
The front 200mm is rated for 130CFM and runs full blast all the time. Yes, the 200mm fans seem like they don't push a lot of air, because you can't feel it, but they actually do move a lot of air, just at a lower pressure. But even still, the exhaust is pulling air in from the other vents in the computer, so the intake isn't as important. And there was plenty of heat coming out of the top of my case, it was insane.
$649???
Even if wccftech are just idiot clickbaiters :laugh:
Nano = SFF
That's what I was afraid of and it is entirely possible. It puts me in a pickle. :( I might have to go Fury or 290X.
Same price as the Fury X
Pro's: It's 1 inch shorter
Con's: No AIO....lower clocks....lower board power limit.....lower input power available even if the board power limit can be circumvented
Tell me it ain't so
Having said that, Gigabyte's GTX 970 mini is the same length as the Nano/Asus GTX970 DC2 at 170mm/6.7" , and is $300. ( the Asus card is presently $335 at the Egg). It would be interesting to see how many people would justify a ~30% increase in performance for a 216% increase in price - especially when AMD themselves are offering a better equipped card offering better performance at the same (supposed) price point.
I went half AMD! :D
I was expecting a price above $500. But the same price as 980Ti? YOU F#$%^&*ING MORONS IF EVGA (for example) COMES OUT WITH A 980TI ITX WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT NANO? The fact that a 980Ti ITX would be a couple of inches longer, is not going to save Nano.
Nano will probably go only in ready systems, like Alienware's where you can hide the price, or sell it to Alienware for $550 and not $650. But in retail they will probably sell less cards than the number of posts in here.
Plenty of games? WAY more loss than 1 fps? Would love to see these results.
Personally, I've seen AF reduce frame-rate by more than 1 FPS but, it's no where as heavy as AA is. From a technical standpoint, AF is highly dependent on memory bandwidth unlike AA which is more dependent on the speed and quantity of the ROPs.