Thursday, April 19th 2018

PowerColor Radeon RX Vega Nano Pictured

A mysterious Radeon RX Vega Nano graphics card from manufacturer PowerColor made a surprise appearance at AMD's Ryzen 2000 series launch event held in Munich. Although based on AMD's reference design, this PowerColor model differs a little from the RX Vega Nano prototype that was showcased back in SIGGRAPH 2017 by Raja Koduri. In terms of design, PowerColor's prototype lacks the illuminated Radeon cube on the corner, and the axial fan sits further to the left. The heatsink is physically longer and extends slightly beyond the graphics card's PCB. The manufacturer also added an additional 6-pin PCIe connector for more power delivery. At the time of this article's publication, PowerColor hasn't confirmed if their Radeon RX Vega Nano will be available to the public.
Source: PC Games Hardware
Add your own comment

30 Comments on PowerColor Radeon RX Vega Nano Pictured

#1
GhostRyder
Now that would be interesting especially if its a full fledged 64 chip.
Posted on Reply
#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Now that is kinda cool. Hopefully a full coverage water block comes out for it.
Posted on Reply
#4
dj-electric
"Miners would love what they can't see!"
Posted on Reply
#5
ZoneDymo
"dj-electric said:
"Miners would love what they can't see!"
"Gamers would love what they can't get"
Posted on Reply
#6
the54thvoid
So, back in SIGGRAPH 2017, that would have been a 'wood screw' model, a la Nvidia? Just saying, need to roll with 'em punches. It was only last week or so someone commented on Nvidia's 'fake card' from years back, seems reasonable to restore balance in the force by pointing out AMD do the same - displaying mock-ups of 'yet to be made' products.
Posted on Reply
#7
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
"GhostRyder said:
Now that would be interesting especially if its a full fledged 64 chip.
Yes it would be, however that pcie power shows a 6 and 8, so most likely a Vega56.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
"cdawall said:
Now that is kinda cool.
I question that statement, seeing the size of this fan and block :)
Posted on Reply
#9
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
"eidairaman1 said:
Yes it would be, however that pcie power shows a 6 and 8, so most likely a Vega56.
R9 nano had full fury x core and had 1 8 pin instead of 2 like fury x
Posted on Reply
#10
ensabrenoir
PowerColor hasn't confirmed if their Radeon RX Vega Nano will be available to the public ..... no fair....I hope they don't wait till its all but obsolete to finally put this model out.
Posted on Reply
#11
Fouquin
"the54thvoid said:
So, back in SIGGRAPH 2017, that would have been a 'wood screw' model, a la Nvidia? Just saying, need to roll with 'em punches. It was only last week or so someone commented on Nvidia's 'fake card' from years back, seems reasonable to restore balance in the force by pointing out AMD do the same - displaying mock-ups of 'yet to be made' products.
I don't believe it's as severe as that. AMD has a propensity to show off early samples of planned products. An early PCB design for a dual-Fiji card was shown off at the Fury X launch, but the Radeon Pro Duo came much later and as an entirely different design. This is probably a similar scenario, however I'd assume a lack of resources for yet another Vega product line probably halted any formal release.
Posted on Reply
#12
Hugh Mungus
Wonder if this confirms 12nm rx 600 vega? Cut down/downscaled veg is possible and 12nm is relatively easy to adopt and would help increase efficiency at lower clockspeeds, which seems like a necessary change for vega nano.
Posted on Reply
#13
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
"Hugh Mungus said:
Wonder if this confirms 12nm rx 600 vega? Cut down/downscaled veg is possible and 12nm is relatively easy to adopt and would help increase efficiency at lower clockspeeds, which seems like a necessary change for vega nano.
It would help close a gap between 580 and vega56. It seems in smaller packages Vega is better, at least in APU Form
Posted on Reply
#14
Hugh Mungus
"eidairaman1 said:
It would help close a gap between 580 and vega56. It seems in smaller packages Vega is better, at least in APU Form
And 12nm supposedly is just tweaked 16/14nm((+)+), so should be easy enough if they can place everything correctly. I mean, leapfrogging is common practice (to a point), so 12nm could have been a little side project on the road to 7nm, which IS coming. If they can pull 7nm off, they can do 12 and since 14nm isn't competitive with nvidia's next gpus, AMD will have to do something to not be knocked out of the gaming gpu market completely due to lack of 7nm production and 14nm limitations. They can't hold out forever if they care about gaming gpus. In official statements at least they do seem to care about the gaming market, especially since it's supposedly growing and relatively easy to profit from.
Posted on Reply
#15
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
"Hugh Mungus said:
And 12nm supposedly is just tweaked 16/14nm((+)+), so should be easy enough if they can place everything correctly. I mean, leapfrogging is common practice (to a point), so 12nm could have been a little side project on the road to 7nm, which IS coming. If they can pull 7nm off, they can do 12 and since 14nm isn't competitive with nvidia's next gpus, AMD will have to do something to not be knocked out of the gaming gpu market completely due to lack of 7nm production and 14nm limitations. They can't hold out forever if they care about gaming gpus. In official statements at least they do seem to care about the gaming market, especially since it's supposedly growing and relatively easy to profit from.
The problem is the shaders/cus are general purpose jack of all trades but a master of none, GCN has served it's purpose, time for a new arch that is non GCN.
Posted on Reply
#16
Hugh Mungus
"eidairaman1 said:
The problem is the shaders/cus are general purpose jack of all trades but a master of none, GCN has served it's purpose, time for a new arch that is non GCN.
Yeah, but they can milk GCN while they make navi and, especially, its replacement! I'll take AMD over GeneralPoopPractices anyday untill it's wayyyy too expensive AND wayyyyy too slow! A bit like importing some American car to europe around 2000..... The current situation is more like the current state of Radeon.
Posted on Reply
#17
Flyordie
Well, Sapphire already has an RX Vega56 Nano out. Its the PULSE model. It uses a VERY VERY slightly modified Nano PCB.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vya Domus
"the54thvoid said:
So, back in SIGGRAPH 2017, that would have been a 'wood screw' model, a la Nvidia? Just saying, need to roll with 'em punches. It was only last week or so someone commented on Nvidia's 'fake card' from years back, seems reasonable to restore balance in the force by pointing out AMD do the same - displaying mock-ups of 'yet to be made' products.
Is that really a capital crime ? They didn't mention anything at all about it, like literally nothing. So what exactly are you pointing out that they didn't adhere to ?
Posted on Reply
#20
Ubersonic
I'm not really interested in the Vega nano as the power usage of Vega doesn't really bother me, what I am interested in though is if it ends up being the base of the dual GPU Vega card like the Fury Nano did. Vega is the first series since HD2000 to not have a dual GPU card in the lineup and a dual Vega Nano would really appeal to me
Posted on Reply
#21
Basard
Meh, there's not really much point without water cooling, but it would be damn good in a small case if it was on water, but then so would a mini nVidia card. This is way cooler than a nVidia card though.
Posted on Reply
#22
Hugh Mungus
"Basard said:
Meh, there's not really much point without water cooling, but it would be damn good in a small case if it was on water, but then so would a mini nVidia card. This is way cooler than a nVidia card though.
Pretty much every case can hold a 120mm radiator, so watercooling COULD be the solution, although that radiator would have to be so small for compatibility reasons that air cooling might work just as well. Lower clockspeeds or lower CU count are the solution. Personally, I think 40-48CU and high-ish clockspeed are the way to go and then air cooling could work just fine. Vega IS an efficient and powerful arch, just not if it has to compete with the likes of 1080's and 1080 ti's, so AMD really only has to figure out a way to make high-end cards wayyyyy more efficiënt, while still keeping them profitable. Larger dies could help for example, because then you could keep clockspeeds down and increase efficiency, but that would make vega wayyyy too expensive and more 64 CU's seems to be the limit for vega and faster RAM Also would be too expensive probably, but would help a bit.

Maybe latency is a major part of the problem as well seeing as more CU's is worse sometimes. Even "12nm" would help with that, probably about as much as with zen, if not more because so many different clusters have to work together. Faster RAM, lower latency in the gpu itself and mildly increased efficiency (which probably just translates to higher clockspeeds, which also means lower latency) will make a fairly significant difference, 10% or so with gpu limited workloads.

7nm (gaming) vega/navi should come before the end of Turing/Ampere/Volta, so AMD CAN still fix things. Their lack of innovation in years past reaply messed them up and nvidia could be slowing down and in 2020 Intel will join the clustercluck, so they have about 2 years to get creative!
Posted on Reply
#23
SkyN3T24
Does this have the same type of Vapour Chamber the original Nano had?
Posted on Reply
#24
Totally
Considering that the PCB on the on a full size Vega card past the PCI connector almoust nothing but empty space, the power connecters and a couple of random bits that can easily be moved a nano is kind of expected. Almost not newsworthy.
Posted on Reply
#25
Midland Dog
"cdawall said:
Now that is kinda cool. Hopefully a full coverage water block comes out for it.
An AIO bracket or a full cover block is the only way i see this being competitive in the same class as its bigger brothers (V56, V64). I would hope they make it with the full core enabled but i doubt it based on vegas thermals and power draw, even the Fury Nano throttled to the point where it was keeping up with the 980, not the 980ti. Its going to be close behind the 1070 is my best guess, if it had of been release way earlier we might have seen a 1060ti to compete
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment