AMD Announces the Radeon R9 Nano Graphics Card

[Vayra86]

Probably Nano will change it, after all. It will actually help AMD's market share to keep declining.

Hahah, I wasn't going to go there, but yes, sad but true. Somehow AMD has managed to find another niche for a product that is not competitive at this price point. 'But it is for ITX'. Okay. Who cares?

 

[15th Warlock]

I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share

Ars doesn't have a review, that page is just a glorified announcement. They even push the 'potential for overclocking' while we already know how that will work out - especially with a 175W TDP.

Thanks for the correction, edited my post to reflect it

 

[geon2k2]

I think we can already safely conclude that Nano isn't going to change AMD"s market share

I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.

Guys its a tiny card with huge performance.
Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this.

I feel like everyone on this forum has an nvidia card in his computer, and they cannot believe what the others managed to do. (which is quite possible seeing the latest market shares)

If its worth the price or not its another thing, but yes, for some with very compact systems it will be definitely worth it. Not everyone likes a big noisy box with 5 fans in the house.

 

[semantics]

I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.

Guys its a tiny card with huge performance.
Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this.

I feel like everyone on this forum has an nvidia card in his computer, and they cannot believe what the others managed to do. (which is quite possible seeing the latest market shares)

If its worth the price or not its another thing, but yes, for some with very compact systems it will be definitely worth it. Not everyone likes a big noisy box with 5 fans in the house.

You can fit a fury x in an itx case and it be quieter and do better, that's why it doesn't matter.

 

[TheMailMan78]

When I read the title of this card all I can think of is.........

 

[awesomesauce]

see guys! size dont matter

 

[64K]

You can fit a fury x in an itx case and it be quieter and do better, that's why it doesn't matter.

So it's not even necessary for an ITX build. I'm thinking the speculation is true that it will run at around 850 to 900 MHz on the core clocks but that is slower than the Fury X for the same price. It will use less watts which is good if you pay a lot for electricity. The only other compelling reason I've seen from people posting that they want one is that it's so cute.

Just speaking for myself aesthetics have some bearing in my choices for hardware but only after the quality, performance and price boxes have been ticked.

Maybe AMD should slap a 'Hello Kitty' sticker on the Nano.

 

[Sihastru]

So... is everyone #disappointed yet?

But seriously, I was expecting the core to be crippled in a much worse way. Having the full 4096 cores active is almost impressive.

Now what I don't understand is who is this card for? ITX people? Most of them can use the Fury X, and at exactly the same price, why would they care so much about the Nano? AMD is cornering themselves into a niche of a niche of a market that keeps getting smaller and smaller? They dropped to 18% market share last time I looked. nVIDIA, even with all the hate, is up to almost 82%.

What is AMD's plan here?

 

[arbiter]

We'll see soon how GTA V will perform on this card once the DX12 patch is released.

I don't think rockstar has plans for DX12 patch least they haven't said they do as far as i know.

 

[xvi]

That's a very niche market they're banking on and even then it doesn't make sense. There are mini GTX 970s in the wild that seem like they're going to compete with the Nano and will do so with half the price. AMD's propaganda claims the Nano will be 30% faster than the mITX GTX 970s out there, but if Nano speeds are expected to weigh in a little under 390X performance levels, that puts performance a little closer to 10%.

I say this every time, I really like me some Team Red, but it just doesn't make sense. Again, I think we just have to wait for benchmarks. Even at the 30% claimed, AMD must be trying to capture that slim "fastest regardless of price" market to expect twice the cost.

Actually, they're looking for a niche market inside of a niche market. "Fastest regardless of price" AND "Fits in my mITX case". Many, myself included, would go mATX and a normal card.

 

[Sihastru]

The GTX 970 MINI costs less then half, like $299 or less if you look around. 30% faster for 50% more money works only if you have the actual #1 performance card. This is not it. And performance press slides always translate into real-life performance results. As we all know.

Also, I'm going to be trolling again, how lame is it that they are again using an Intel ITX motherboard in an AMD PRESS RELEASE? Is AMD trying to tell us something? Maybe a future business merger?

 

[semantics]

The GTX 970 MINI costs less then half, like $299 or less if you look around. 30% faster for 50% more money works only if you have the actual #1 performance card. This is not it. And performance press slides always translate into real performance tests. As we all know.

Also, I'm going to be trolling again, how lame is it that they are again using an Intel ITX motherboard in an AMD PRESS RELEASE? Is AMD trying to tell us something? Maybe a future business merger?

They know their cpus are worthless for top performance. Their good cpus are the cheaper apu market where you'd want to use their discrete graphics unlike intel's, although intel's discrete are becoming better every year.

 

[Sihastru]

Well, obviously... But for a press release shot, where you can't see if there's even a CPU installed under a heat sink, they could've used an AMD ITX board. There are a few out there.

I mean... have some pride!

 

[Blue-Knight]

AMD, you've just failed one more time.

 

[GC_PaNzerFIN]

They should have at least left the Intel sticker on the cooler. Using competitor hardware and disguising it as yours is very bad indeed. Good try tho, probably fools someone with that Radeon memory and all.

 

[VanguardGX]

At this price point, I am sorry. This card is a no no. I just cant see why I would get this over a fury X.

 

[RealNeil]

And crossfire/sli is not an option

Cough-cough!

Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)

 

[NC37]

Probably Nano will change it, after all. It will actually help AMD's market share to keep declining.

All nVidia has to do is drop the 980 down to the $400 range and AMD will effectively be dead. 390s are just a better value than the 970/980s thanks to the VRAM. But hey, if nVidia wants to move 204s, bring that 980 down to compete and introduce 6-8GB models for both the 980 and 980Ti. Consider AMD dead if they do.

Frankly, the 970 is not a viable option due to the VRAM issue. 960 isn't viable because its a piece of crap. 980 is the only option and right now it is overpriced. 390s are the only viable options for the price segment. Which is the price nVidia pays for gimping the 960 with a 206 chip instead of a 204 and leveraging the 204 far too much.

 

[mr2009]

Cough-cough!

Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)

Would love to see how one Crossfire this mini-itx GPU into a mini-ITX mothterboard that only have 1 pciex16 slot....

 

[HumanSmoke]

I don't get it, when intel has good performance/watt is fine, when nvidia has it ... the architecture just trashes amd ... no matter how you look at it amd does bad.

It's bad when you offer less performance for the same price as a card you've just launched
It's bad when you remove an AIO and replace it with a vapour chamber but the cost remains the same

Guys its a tiny card with huge performance.

Don't get carried away. It's only an inch shorter than the Fury X.
Does that make up for an inferior cooler?
Does that make up for inferior clocks?
Does that make up for inferior performance?
Does that make up for being a louder card?

Its sexy and i'm sure everyone will love to have one of this.

Buy me one and I'll test out your theory

I feel like everyone on this forum has an nvidia card in his computer,

Most people are comparing the NaNO!NO!NO! to the Fury X. FYI both are made by AMD.
Maybe its more a case of people realizing that they're being offered less for the same price and they fail to appreciate AMD's line of reasoning. Why spend the same amount on a slower version of a card that already exists and has a much superior cooling solution and is barely an inch longer?
It's awesome that AMD feel the need to fill a niche for Intel mini-ITX platform owners though. I'd assume that anyone buying a $650 card isn't going to want performance bottlenecked any further by anything AMD can put into that particular form factor.

and they cannot believe what the others managed to do.

Yep. If McDonalds decided to sell sliders for the same price as Big Mac's citing form factor as reasoning, they'd really be onto something.

f its worth the price or not its another thing, but yes, for some with very compact systems it will be definitely worth it. Not everyone likes a big noisy box with 5 fans in the house.

So, the market is for people who spend $650 on a graphics card, that have a chassis too small for a 19cm board, and prefer a high rpm fan to a quieter AIO/fan combo, and even though they spent $650 on a single card, don't care that it leaves a ton of untapped potential unavailable to them. Sounds like you'll need get in quick - these should sell like hot cakes.

When I read the title of this card all I can think of is.........

Robin Williams an AMD's BoD both afflicted by Dementia?

 

[xvi]

Crossfire/SLI is always an option! (depends on how much you want it)

Honestly, I'm curious to know why we can't plug in some kind of riser with a PLX chip on it that'll expand a single PCI-e slot in to multiple ones.
Wait.. No! I didn't say that! DIBS ON COPYRIGHT/PATENTS/ETC!

 

[arbiter]

So, the market is for people who spend $650 on a graphics card, that have a chassis too small for a 19cm board, and prefer a high rpm fan to a quieter AIO/fan combo, and even though they spent $650 on a single card, don't care that it leaves a ton of untapped potential unavailable to them. Sounds like you'll need get in quick - these should sell like hot cakes.

its for people that can't fit the AIO water cooler and want best 4k performance. but if you are not gonna play on 4k, but either like 1440 or 1080 you might well save half the $ for a gtx970

 

[HumanSmoke]

Honestly, I'm curious to know why we can't plug in some kind of riser with a PLX chip on it that'll expand a single PCI-e slot in to multiple ones.
Wait.. No! I didn't say that! DIBS ON COPYRIGHT/PATENTS/ETC!

You mean kind of like these?

 

[gaximodo]

I'm tired to see comments about AMD like this :'potential performance improvements'; 'performance upgrades thru out the years with drivers';'potential unlockable cores'; 'Potential overclockers' dream'.

Too much promises, too much uncertainties, based on AMD's track record, these uncertainties should not be valued while making a purchase decision. Especially all their products are pushed much further than competitors in order for AMD to keep competitive.

I don't think Nano will be a good product for its targeted markets even at reasonable prices (in line with its performance), given its AMD measured noises and thermal outputs.

 

[Vayra86]

All nVidia has to do is drop the 980 down to the $400 range and AMD will effectively be dead. 390s are just a better value than the 970/980s thanks to the VRAM. But hey, if nVidia wants to move 204s, bring that 980 down to compete and introduce 6-8GB models for both the 980 and 980Ti. Consider AMD dead if they do.

Frankly, the 970 is not a viable option due to the VRAM issue. 960 isn't viable because its a piece of crap. 980 is the only option and right now it is overpriced. 390s are the only viable options for the price segment. Which is the price nVidia pays for
gimping the 960 with a 206 chip instead of a 204 and leveraging the 204 far too much.

This is wrong on so many counts...

The 980 isn't going to drop to that range, Nvidia has no reason to compete at every price point. And they have shown in the recent past they won't, with Kepler. The 680 only got cheaper once the 770 landed and only because AMD had the solid 7970/280x up against it. If Nvidia wants to compete, they use their cheapo 970. AMD is trying to pull a Nvidia with their Fury cards, thinking they're Titans on water, but nobody cares because of the negative image of the company and lackluster performance below 4K, not to mention the fact that Fury gets crushed after overclocked results versus 980ti. 980ti is both more versatile and less power hungry while having more VRAM and the power to drive it.

390s are not better value thanks to VRAM, because 8GB on that card is useless until you crossfire it. And there is no game that runs over 4GB on plausible resolutions either. It's a non-argument. You're not driving 4k with this, and if so, you need crossfire.
The 970 isn't gimped in a single card setup, there is zero evidence to support that.
The 960 can drop in price just like 660 did, making it an acceptable mid ranger. Remember however that we might still see a 950ti, just like 750ti pushed 660 out of the market. But then again the 950 is good enough already.

The bottom line is, AMD can only compete with their old line up and nobody really wants a Pitcairn these days anymore. So what's left? 390... which is also old news, that is not going to force Nvidia to do anything. And Nano, well I'm sure it looks great but they will sell about 3 of those.