Not interested anymore unless this is a 7nm version.

So what's with this comment?
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156445316744452&id=106063269451

"Not the "Nano" that we were expecting. :("

eidairaman1So what's with this comment?
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156445316744452&id=106063269451

"Not the "Nano" that we were expecting. :("

i wonder who runs the FB page

NIce for 299$..

We investigated, it wasn't a Nano but instead it was a Nano, and we were disappointed. That is how this story reads.

Are there any Nanos on the market right now, 56 or not? I'm not really looking(I would like to get it for $299 though) but don't think anyone has one yet so why the disappointment?

eidairaman1So what's with this comment?
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156445316744452&id=106063269451

"Not the "Nano" that we were expecting. :("

Well, I agree with them. For Vega Nano I kind of expected cherrypicked silicon at 1070 performance and ~170W of power consumption exactly 1 year ago :):

krukI'm also sure a Vega Nano with sub 170W and 1070+ performance is possible, but don't expect it at $399 but much more. Why? Because the Vega Nano lineup will probably have the best binned chips to have great performance at low power consumption - same story as with Fury Nano.

But this card looks like RX Vega 56 with short PCB and that is it ... That additional 6-pin connector is the source of my doubts ...

KinestronWe investigated, it wasn't a Nano but instead it was a Nano, and we were disappointed. That is how this story reads.

Are there any Nanos on the market right now, 56 or not? I'm not really looking(I would like to get it for $299 though) but don't think anyone has one yet so why the disappointment?

its we want Vega 64 Nano, doesnt matter if none exist, the original prototype shown by AMD is 64

krukBut this card looks like RX Vega 56 with short PCB and that is it ... :(

It's literally Powercolor's short PCB Vega 56 "Red Dragon" with the triple fan cooler replaced with a weaksauce one (and presumably a reduction in clocks to avoid throttling).

IMO they have made this specifically so uneducated buyers will think it's the ~150w Vega Nano that AMD showed last year, quite a scummy move.

kastriotNIce for 299$..

While I hear you, being a new and one-off special that PowerColor worked and did their own R&D magic (not AMD) then I think for the exclusivity I might say at the $400 MSRP that the Vega 56 released at it has merit... If it has the perf/watt that makes it a good choice for the Mini ATX format/chassis. As long as it competes with GTX 1070's Single Fan Minis (aka: MSI, Gigabyte ITX ~$450) in that segment I see PowerColor has no reason to believe they should sell it for less than competition in the market.

T4C Fantasyits we want Vega 64 Nano, doesnt matter if none exist, the original prototype shown by AMD is 64

Yeah, that is not clear in the article. People don't read every article to know the backstory to every new article. Crazy, I know.

KinestronYeah, that is not clear in the article. People don't read every article to know the backstory to every new article. Crazy, I know.

Everyone should know that by now

T4C FantasyEveryone should know that by now

It's a crazy world.

Updated the Facebook post text slightly to clarify

I might also clarify that all DRAM prices are up since the Vega line came-out. That's a reason that a Vega like this is more pricey today, while so are the GDDR5 equipped cards. That said, again it's weighed against perf/watt (thermals) to say it the cost adder is justified. I've have to re-calculate what such total package cost are for GPU's based on such DRAM is still not at excess level and cost for AIB (AMD in the case of Vega) are not where they where in 2016-2017.

kastriotNIce for 299$..

that wont last long. :(

T4C Fantasythe original prototype shown by AMD is 64

I don't think they ever confirmed it was based on Vega 64. I don't think they said anything about it at all , other than showing that prototype.

CasecutterWhile I hear you, being a new and one-off special that PowerColor worked and did their own R&D magic (not AMD) then I think for the exclusivity I might say at the $400 MSRP that the Vega 56 released at it has merit... If it has the perf/watt that makes it a good choice for the Mini ATX format/chassis. As long as it competes with GTX 1070's Single Fan Minis (aka: MSI, Gigabyte ITX ~$450) in that segment I see PowerColor has no reason to believe they should sell it for less than competition in the market.

200W for the 56 is possible in that form factor, but I doubt it'll be quiet at full blast.
What I CAN tell you is that a 290X at 280W and a Vega 64 at 300W with essentially identical coolers and you notice the average power consumption of the vega is much much lower.
In certain games the vega seems to not want to push, it does so much dynamic mumbo jumbo that I don't mind in most titles but the fastest pace fps games it does not always run full tilt for maximum fpsness.
nothing their driver software cannot fix :)

Having compared GTX1070TI (MSRP) and Vega56 near MSRP I must say the vega56 makes a really good choice, at those prices that is..
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about vega56, Vega64 ain't worth it (I paid GTX1070 price for mine, hence the reason why I have one) and I do not reccomend anyone buying a 64, go for the 56 if you're an amd fan, and consider the 56 if you consider 1070\1070ti.

If they can deliver up to 200W ~ in this form factor it's worth 450 $ easy, if they've gotten binned chips with lower voltages I say hell yes worth it.
90% of the Vega64 performance at 2/3rd of the power consumption

Vya DomusI don't think they ever confirmed it was based on Vega 64. I don't think they said anything about it at all , other than showing that prototype.

It was going to be 64 cus like the last nano, they wouldnt downgrade

Either way... mid-May 2018, it's pretty hard to get excited about any Vega product now.

Vya DomusI don't think they ever confirmed it was based on Vega 64. I don't think they said anything about it at all , other than showing that prototype.

The "prototype" shown at the Vega reveal was a Fury Nano with an updated shroud they threw together to make sure people knew there would be a Vega Nano down the line after a die shrink.

The idea of the eventual Vega Nano being a sub 200w Vega 64 is simply assumed due to the Fury Nano being a sub 200w Fury X.

UbersonicThe "prototype" shown at the Vega reveal was a Fury Nano with an updated shroud they threw together to make sure people knew there would be a Vega Nano down the line after a die shrink.

The idea of the eventual Vega Nano being a sub 200w Vega 64 is simply assumed due to the Fury Nano being a sub 200w Fury X.

A 56 CU Vega would be much more appealing. It would maintain higher clocks and lower power consumption. And it would also be more appealing price wise.

Fury Nano didn't really make much sense since it would often throttle, if they were to base it on the Fury it would have probably had the same performance and it would have also been cheaper.

kastriotNIce for 299$..

Nice for street price of at least 1070.

UbersonicThe "prototype" shown at the Vega reveal was a Fury Nano with an updated shroud they threw together to make sure people knew there would be a Vega Nano down the line after a die shrink.

The idea of the eventual Vega Nano being a sub 200w Vega 64 is simply assumed due to the Fury Nano being a sub 200w Fury X.

It was definetly not a fury nano in a nrw shroud the rare of the the pcb proves that.

The prototype was a final product

One is the prototype the other is a sapphire pcb vega

Looking at the TDP I'd consider a 15-20% drop from the reference 56 at 210W perhaps achievable. Looking at what the R9 Fury TDP to what the original Nano was able to release as, was more about a 35% reduction in TDP. If this card comes in a 170-180W and can maintain performance with 5-8% level of the Vega 56, I could see it as good competitor to the GTX 1070 in the Mini ITX Single fan package.