• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Core Configuration Detailed

Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
854 (0.23/day)
Honesty if this card has a competitive price/performance ratio it'll be a really great card for consumers. I'll never understand AMDs reasoning behind using a full Fury X core in it, I swear AMD is trying to kill themselves... I really can't wait for the review of this card, if anything AMD is an extremely interesting company. :p
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,147 (6.09/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 5500 XT Pulse 8 GiB
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
It could be that Fury X gets the low ASIC quality chips and Nano gets the high ASIC quality chips.

We don't know the price yet. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the price is close to Fury X's. Nano effectively is Fury X for small form factor computers (Steam Machines comes to mind).
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,853 (0.51/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!
If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste delicious.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
754 (0.14/day)
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K
Motherboard Asus Z97i Plus
Cooling Antec Kuhler 620 + Gentle Typhoon 3000RPM
Memory A-DATA XPG V2 DDR3-2400 16GB
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G
Storage Samsung 850 Ev0 500GB
Display(s) Qnix QX2710 @100Hz
Case Silverstone SG13
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Silverstone SX-500LG
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Corsair K70 Lux
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Not interested in benchmarks
I think it is about time I got rid of my Korean panel.

Pricing though...$500?
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
3,687 (0.80/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Felix777
Processor Core i5-3570k@stock
Motherboard Biostar H61
Memory 8gb
Video Card(s) XFX RX 470
Storage WD 500GB BLK
Display(s) Acer p236h bd
Case Haf 912
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Rosewill CAPSTONE 450watt
Software Win 10 x64
Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.
 

the54thvoid

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
8,054 (2.08/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
System Name Newer Ho'Ryzen
Processor Ryzen 3700X
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VI Hero
Cooling TR Le Grand Macho
Memory 16Gb G.Skill 3200 RGB
Video Card(s) RTX 2080ti MSI Duke @2Ghz ish
Storage Samsumg 960 Pro m2. 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Lian Li PC-V33WX
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Seasonic Prime TItanium 850
Software W10
Benchmark Scores Look, it's a Ryzen on air........ What's the point?
If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste delicious.
As a 980ti Kingpin owner (quite possibly the most Nvidia centric fanboy card you can buy), your comment about the 4gb is absolute crap. The 970 does work well but it does not address the full 4gb in a normal fashion. It only utilises 3.3gb-3.5gb and the remainder throttles performance when called upon.
It still performs well and I'll defend that but Nvidia CLEARLY mislead consumers about 4gb, when the last 0.5gb can hinder performance, though as stated, very few scenarios get to that point.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,505 (0.85/day)
In SFF builds and I've built a lot of them, Geforce x60 GTX is the limit I put on it. SFF case's lack of air flow and small volume means I shouldn't put anything more powerful than that.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
1,308 (0.35/day)
Processor Core i7 920
Motherboard Asus P6T v2
Cooling Noctua D-14
Memory OCZ Gold 1600
Video Card(s) Powercolor PCS+ 5870
Storage Samsung SpinPoint F3 1 TB
Display(s) Samsung LE-B530 37" TV
Case Lian Li PC-B25F
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 700w
Software Windows 7 64-bit
If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste delicious.
Assimilator, try to focus on the product in hand rather than derailing the thread by acting as an apologist for nVidia products that clearly entailed the false advertising you claim you are unwilling to forgive in the case of AMD. The accusations of fanboyism you level against others are discredited by your refusal to apply the same yardstick in each case. Would you measure your own schlong in centimetres and everyone else's in inches and compare without converting units to support your belief that you are the new Ron Jeremy?
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,849 (1.70/day)
Location
Texas
System Name SnowFire / The Reinforcer / Portable? / New Portable?
Processor i7 8086K 5.0ghz (24/7) / 2x Xeon E52650v2 / i7 7700HQ / AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
Motherboard Asus Z370 Prime-A / Dell Dual Socket (R720) / HP Omen Stock / Asrock X570 ITX
Cooling RX 360mm + 140mm Custom Loop / Dell Stock / HP Stock / Noctua L9i (Yes L9i)
Memory Corsair RGB 16gb DDR4 3000 CL 16 / DDR3 128gb 16 x 8gb / 12gb DDR4 3 x 4gb / Corsair RGB 3200 16gb
Video Card(s) GTX Titan XP (2025mhz) / Asus GTX 950 (No Power Connector) / RX 580 / GTX 970 (Temp)
Storage Samsung 970 1tb NVME and 2tb HDD x4 RAID 5 / 300gb x8 RAID 5 / NVME 240gb SSD and 1tb HDD
Display(s) Acer XG270HU 1440p 144hz Freesync, Acer B286HK 4K UHD Monitor / 1080p 60hz Freesync display
Case Corsair Obsidian 800D / Dell Poweredge R720 Rack Mount Case / HP Omen 17 / Fractal Design Node 202
Audio Device(s) Realtec ALC1150 (On board)
Power Supply Rosewill Lightning 1300Watt / Dell Stock 750 / Brick / Fractal Design 450 Watt Bronze
Mouse Logitech G5
Keyboard Logitech G19S
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows Server 2008 R2 / Windows 10 Home / Windows 10 Pro
I had a GTX 970 before and it was a very nice card. I was an early adopter and got the card before the truth came out. I did think it strange that I got it for $360 when the 980 was $550 with only a little better performance. The previous generation was $400 for the 670 and $500 for the 680. I expected similar pricing.

But yeah, Nvidia definitely told some lies and AMD lies sometimes and Publishers lie sometimes. It's a bit of a shady hobby we're in.
Its just an unfortunate game we all play, its part of being a computer hobbyist as things are not always what they seem. We all get through it somehow though :p

If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste delicious.
One of the only clear fanboys here is you since you see fit to trash talk most AMD product news. If you want to talk about people being fanboys, look in a mirror.

As a 980ti Kingpin owner (quite possibly the most Nvidia centric fanboy card you can buy), your comment about the 4gb is absolute crap. The 970 does work well but it does not address the full 4gb in a normal fashion. It only utilises 3.3gb-3.5gb and the remainder throttles performance when called upon.
It still performs well and I'll defend that but Nvidia CLEARLY mislead consumers about 4gb, when the last 0.5gb can hinder performance, though as stated, very few scenarios get to that point.
^This sums it up quite nicely!

Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.
Depends on the cards, recent video cards can overclock a lot better (Especially on NVidias side) than in the past where it was a lot more luck of the draw. I had Dual GTX 980's which could only achieve about 980mhz core clock max while my friends stopped at 925mhz. Then I had a set of HD 6990's both of which attained a 1000mhz overclock on the cores where as another friend had one that could hit a little over 1000mhz (I think 1025 though I cannot remember) and another that could even break 940. Overclocking in any form anyways only gets you some gains up to a point. If you really want overclocking cards, your best bet is to buy cards that are designed for it as those are the ones that will have a higher binning cycle (Especially if they start out with higher clocks) like the MSI Lightning series, Asus Matrix, or EVGA Classified's.

I doubt the R9 Nano will have much overclocking at all. I just want to see this cooler and the card in action so we can understand how it works because having this full core seems a bit weird over just binning out some less than stellar example chips of the bunch.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,458 (0.72/day)
If any of you crying AMD fanboys can point me to a place where nVIDIA made claims about the GTX 970 that weren't borne out by independent reviewers... please, go ahead. I'll be waiting, probably until hell freezes over.

And please, stop trotting out the 3.5GB BS. The GTX 970 can address all 4 gigabytes of the graphics memory it has; that makes it a 4GB graphics card. If you claim anything else, you're either ignorant, stupid, or a combination of both.

Keep crying those fanboy tears though. They taste delicious.
You sir, are either a willful idiot or a fanboy of the highest caliber.

Nvidia itself basically said that they sold a 3 GB card, with a memory structure whose last bits were only designed such that "...GTX 970 is a 4GB card. However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment..." That article that quote comes from can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-boss-responds-to-gtx-970-false-advertising-/1100-6425510/

If you are to be truly honest, that's the Nvidia team peddling BS. You could bend over backwards and accept their logic, but if you do so then the Fury Xis the absolute best card currently on the market. You just have to reduce your sample size to a few hand picked titles at 4K, where the 980ti is beaten.


What we are arguing is to have a consistent standard for judgement. Right now, you've got two options. Either both companies peddle whatever BS will move cards, or both companies are 100% honest because they can find at least one instance where their claims are true.

Nvidia, AMD, and Intel all say whatever they need to to move hardware. This is why being an early adopter sucks so hard. If you don't wait for reviews, you'll always be disappointed. Stating that one manufacturer, or another, is uniformly better is stupid. Neither is better than the other, only their currently offered products are better or worse when measured to one another.


Edit:
If the 3.5 GB memory thing is still an impasse, maybe you should review an article from a year ago, that is surprisingly still accurate today http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2014-08-05/7-things-nvidia-doesnt-want-know/.

That's right, people doing actual coding work with OpenCL and CUDA are calling Nvidia on BS. Kinda seems like the people actually using GPUs for stuff other than gaming recognize that AMD may not be doing well, but it's because of their marketing and not actual performance. If the AMD marketing was half as slimy as Nvidia they'd be claiming Fury X cured cancer, because it can be used for BOINC and the like.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,145 (0.98/day)
Location
AZ
System Name Thought I'd be done with this by now
Processor i7 4790K 4.4GHZ turbo currently at 4.6GHZ at 1.16v
Motherboard MSI Z97-G55 SLI
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev B (SCMG-2100), stock on gpu's.
Memory 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series DDR3 2400MHZ 10-12-12-31
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked replaced HIS R9 290 that was artifacting
Storage 1TB MX300 M.2 OS + Games, 4x ST31000524NS in Raid 10 Storage and Backup, external 2tb backup,
Display(s) BenQ GW2255 surprisingly good screen for the price.
Case Raidmax Scorpio 668
Audio Device(s) onboard HD
Power Supply EVGA 750 GQ
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores no one cares anymore lols
Where do people get these 30% overclocks? i mean i've had 2x 8800GT's, a 8800GTX, a HD 4870, GTS 250, HD 5770, and now a GTX 560. Best overclock i've ever sustained stable 24/7 was on my HD 5770 where i got it from 800mhz to 910mhz core. So 13% is my best and most my oc's are around 7%-10% at best. Must have rotten luck.
I took 2 GTX 480's from 700 core to 882 that's a 26% overclock on air. Had a 2900 XT go from 743 core to 985 core that's a 32.5% overclock(granted that was on water). My X1800XT went from 625 core to 780 24.8% (also on water) Even my old X700 pro went from 425 to 515, a 21% clock (granted that was pencil modded) and a Radeon 9000 that went from 200 to 250, a 25% clock and that didn't even hit pro levels as that was 275 core and would have been a 37.5% overclock.

Perhaps you're buying pre-clocked cards because 30% doesn't seem rare to me at all. Now 50% that's rare.

In fact the only cards that haven't at least hit 20% were my 9800 pro 256MB, an X1950XT, a 9600GT, and a GTX 295 FTW edition. Aside from the 9800 pro all the rest were preclocked by the manufacturer and you can't expect a 20% overclock on top of an existing overclock.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
1,777 (0.96/day)
Location
Western Canada
System Name Ol' Beastie R3.5
Processor R7 3700X
Motherboard B550M TUF Wifi (0805)
Cooling Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB Trident Z [3733] (16-19-19-37) (DJR)
Video Card(s) RTX 2060 Super FE (UV 0.919V)
Storage 2.75TB of SSDs
Display(s) GW2765HT
Case TJ08B-E, NF-A14 iPPC-2000 + SW3 120mm
Audio Device(s) DT 770 80Ω [FiiO E10K], Blue Snowball + DS7200B
Power Supply Seasonic SSR-550PX [Cablemod SE]
Mouse Endgame XM1
Keyboard various customs
Software Windows 10 2004
You sir, are either a willful idiot or a fanboy of the highest caliber.

Nvidia itself basically said that they sold a 3 GB card, with a memory structure whose last bits were only designed such that "...GTX 970 is a 4GB card. However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth. This is a good design because we were able to add an additional 1GB for GTX 970 and our software engineers can keep less frequently used data in the 512MB segment..." That article that quote comes from can be found here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-boss-responds-to-gtx-970-false-advertising-/1100-6425510/

If you are to be truly honest, that's the Nvidia team peddling BS. You could bend over backwards and accept their logic, but if you do so then the Fury Xis the absolute best card currently on the market. You just have to reduce your sample size to a few hand picked titles at 4K, where the 980ti is beaten.


What we are arguing is to have a consistent standard for judgement. Right now, you've got two options. Either both companies peddle whatever BS will move cards, or both companies are 100% honest because they can find at least one instance where their claims are true.

Nvidia, AMD, and Intel all say whatever they need to to move hardware. This is why being an early adopter sucks so hard. If you don't wait for reviews, you'll always be disappointed. Stating that one manufacturer, or another, is uniformly better is stupid. Neither is better than the other, only their currently offered products are better or worse when measured to one another.


Edit:
If the 3.5 GB memory thing is still an impasse, maybe you should review an article from a year ago, that is surprisingly still accurate today http://streamcomputing.eu/blog/2014-08-05/7-things-nvidia-doesnt-want-know/.

That's right, people doing actual coding work with OpenCL and CUDA are calling Nvidia on BS. Kinda seems like the people actually using GPUs for stuff other than gaming recognize that AMD may not be doing well, but it's because of their marketing and not actual performance. If the AMD marketing was half as slimy as Nvidia they'd be claiming Fury X cured cancer, because it can be used for BOINC and the like.
There is hardly any place for ethics in business, but Nvidia has a long history of taking it to new lows. Selling a 4GB card that isn`t exactly 4GB of the expected GDDR5 is beside the point; the issue is that Nvidia vigorously defended the fact that technically you still get "4GB of VRAM" without acknowledging the issue. I don't, and a lot of people don't give a singular shit about how Nvidia underestimated the effects of employing that kind of crossbar design to achieve that core config. "Oh, it was the best that could be done under the circumstances and we know that we should've been more transparent about it." They knew exactly what they were doing and tried to keep a low profile about it. How anyone can just accept this sad excuse of an explanation and still have the same amount of confidence in Nvidia products is simply beyond me.

This could go on and on but we could be here forever, making a list of all the times Nvidia has been dirty. I just hope the time comes for Nvidia to pay for its business practices; hell, Intel waded through a load of shit for one bit of controversy surrounding OEMs.

Whoever said earlier that the R9 390 is a bullshit product has left me scratching my head. In what way does it not live up to the product it's marketed as? It sure as hell gives the GTX 970 a run for its money, even without any mention of the VRAM. What, do you not have a proper PSU?

Also, someone doesn't seem to understand the importance of binning. Binning is not for OCing alone. In a diminutive card like the Nano, where every bit of the heatsink matters, you don't want some garbage quality chip that takes absurd amounts of voltage to hit the boost clocks you want. 30% overclocks are not that rare in the light of big Maxwell, but suggesting that Nano should've been built around that goal is insanely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
586 (0.25/day)
Processor AMD FX-8320
Motherboard AsRock 970 PRO3 R2.0
Cooling Thermalright Ultra120 eXtreme + 2 LED Green fans
Memory 2 x 4096 MB DDR3-1333 A-Data
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE 4096M R9 FURY X 4G D5
Storage ST1000VX000 • SV35.6 Series™ 1000 GB 7200 rpm
Display(s) Acer S277HK wmidpp 27" 4K (3840 x 2160) IPS
Case Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus Black + Red Lights
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek
Power Supply OCZ ProXStream 1000W
Mouse Genius NetScroll 100X
Keyboard Logitech Wave
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
I took 2 GTX 480's from 700 core to 882 that's a 26% overclock on air. Had a 2900 XT go from 743 core to 985 core that's a 32.5% overclock(granted that was on water). My X1800XT went from 625 core to 780 24.8% (also on water) Even my old X700 pro went from 425 to 515, a 21% clock (granted that was pencil modded) and a Radeon 9000 that went from 200 to 250, a 25% clock and that didn't even hit pro levels as that was 275 core and would have been a 37.5% overclock.

Perhaps you're buying pre-clocked cards because 30% doesn't seem rare to me at all. Now 50% that's rare.

In fact the only cards that haven't at least hit 20% were my 9800 pro 256MB, an X1950XT, a 9600GT, and a GTX 295 FTW edition. Aside from the 9800 pro all the rest were preclocked by the manufacturer and you can't expect a 20% overclock on top of an existing overclock.
I have also never experienced any noticeable up clocks on any of my video cards. Must be poor luck as well.

I don't know how you achieve that - must be something intentional, no? Like cherry picking cards plus water ?
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
249 (0.10/day)
So in theory this card should cost more than the Fury X because it's specially binned chips to hit a lower power, it'll have a fully uncut chip...

I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...

This product seems so niche it's silly. Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
27,164 (5.08/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 9900K@5.0GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix GTX 1080Ti
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Maybe it needed more room to breathe. Which cards did you have?
Sapphire 290X Tri-X's. They were in my Z97 Extreme6, so the top card had a nice gap to breath. It still hit 94°C and started to throttle after about half an hour of gaming.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
586 (0.25/day)
Processor AMD FX-8320
Motherboard AsRock 970 PRO3 R2.0
Cooling Thermalright Ultra120 eXtreme + 2 LED Green fans
Memory 2 x 4096 MB DDR3-1333 A-Data
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE 4096M R9 FURY X 4G D5
Storage ST1000VX000 • SV35.6 Series™ 1000 GB 7200 rpm
Display(s) Acer S277HK wmidpp 27" 4K (3840 x 2160) IPS
Case Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus Black + Red Lights
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek
Power Supply OCZ ProXStream 1000W
Mouse Genius NetScroll 100X
Keyboard Logitech Wave
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
So in theory this card should cost more than the Fury X because it's specially binned chips to hit a lower power, it'll have a fully uncut chip...

I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...

This product seems so niche it's silly. Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?
Let's make these things clear:

- R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury;
- R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually we expect price tag in line of around 450$;
- It won't be niche - it should be the new standard or paving the way for new generations of small cards;
- Fury X doesn't need custom boards - you won't achieve anything if you are seeking for guinness record clock heights. It's the best with water and let it please stay with WATER !
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,147 (6.09/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 5500 XT Pulse 8 GiB
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I just don't think a Nano that costs the same as a 980 Ti is going to do very well because the performance, with the throttling, will probably hit more around the Fury non-X...

This product seems so niche it's silly. Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?
That's what concerns me. It'll have performance between 290X and 390X but I'm increasingly thinking that it will be priced above the 390X--maybe closer to Fury. If that's the case, might as well go with 390X. Nano would only be appealing for SFF builds.

The price should be announced tomorrow.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,849 (1.70/day)
Location
Texas
System Name SnowFire / The Reinforcer / Portable? / New Portable?
Processor i7 8086K 5.0ghz (24/7) / 2x Xeon E52650v2 / i7 7700HQ / AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
Motherboard Asus Z370 Prime-A / Dell Dual Socket (R720) / HP Omen Stock / Asrock X570 ITX
Cooling RX 360mm + 140mm Custom Loop / Dell Stock / HP Stock / Noctua L9i (Yes L9i)
Memory Corsair RGB 16gb DDR4 3000 CL 16 / DDR3 128gb 16 x 8gb / 12gb DDR4 3 x 4gb / Corsair RGB 3200 16gb
Video Card(s) GTX Titan XP (2025mhz) / Asus GTX 950 (No Power Connector) / RX 580 / GTX 970 (Temp)
Storage Samsung 970 1tb NVME and 2tb HDD x4 RAID 5 / 300gb x8 RAID 5 / NVME 240gb SSD and 1tb HDD
Display(s) Acer XG270HU 1440p 144hz Freesync, Acer B286HK 4K UHD Monitor / 1080p 60hz Freesync display
Case Corsair Obsidian 800D / Dell Poweredge R720 Rack Mount Case / HP Omen 17 / Fractal Design Node 202
Audio Device(s) Realtec ALC1150 (On board)
Power Supply Rosewill Lightning 1300Watt / Dell Stock 750 / Brick / Fractal Design 450 Watt Bronze
Mouse Logitech G5
Keyboard Logitech G19S
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows Server 2008 R2 / Windows 10 Home / Windows 10 Pro
That's what concerns me. It'll have performance between 290X and 390X but I'm increasingly thinking that it will be priced above the 390X--maybe closer to Fury. If that's the case, might as well go with 390X. Nano would only be appealing for SFF builds.

The price should be announced tomorrow.
I agree, with this announcement the pricing is of concern along with at least for me the cooler on the card. I believe it looks like it could handle it but I am still curious to see it in action since they are restricting this to reference only as far as I can tell (Which leads me to believe it will be more than adequate).
 
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
142 (0.07/day)
Location
Finland
Processor AMD Phenom II X4 955 (OC 3.8 GHz)
Motherboard Asus M5A97
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Memory 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Kingston HyperX FURY 1333 MHz DDR3
Video Card(s) Asus Radeon HD 7850 DirectCU II
Storage 256 GB Samsung SSD 840 EVO, 40 GB Intel 320 Series SSD, WD 160 GB 7200 RPM HDD
Display(s) 23" Asus VH238 (1080p)
Case Fractal Design Core 2500
Power Supply Antec HCG-520 High Current Gamer 520W
Mouse Logitech G400
Software Windows 8.1 Pro x64
I'm fairly certain that the price will be high, they still have problems getting enough Fury GPUs out to sell, and another product using the same die won't help at all. They'll be grabbing money from the people who build small form factor systems, for most usage cases the R9 390 and 390X will be the better choice. If something else happens, I'm going to be surprised.
 

the54thvoid

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
8,054 (2.08/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
System Name Newer Ho'Ryzen
Processor Ryzen 3700X
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VI Hero
Cooling TR Le Grand Macho
Memory 16Gb G.Skill 3200 RGB
Video Card(s) RTX 2080ti MSI Duke @2Ghz ish
Storage Samsumg 960 Pro m2. 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Lian Li PC-V33WX
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Seasonic Prime TItanium 850
Software W10
Benchmark Scores Look, it's a Ryzen on air........ What's the point?
Why can't AMD just release a Fury X without the water cooler and with custom boards?
You and the world want to know. To keep it a halo product? To ensure no QA problems with the chip? to ensure thermal design envelopes?
The voltage has been tested by W1zzard and he got the result that it doesn't respond very well to over voltage, so perhaps custom cards are unnecessary. But it seems Nano may make use of a backwards approach, limit voltage input to keep tdp down tight, allowing the compact cooler.
I think Fiji in general is too immature to be tested properly. It's like when the initial Tahiti (7970) came out with conservative clocks. AMD may have been cagey to prevent chip problems but with hindsight, released the 'GHz Editions' that rivalled the GTX680.
Fiji came close to nailing it (but in PR terms, still so far away) so I think the next chip or a respin might make a huge difference.
We know DX12 will make a difference in AMD's favour so it'll be interesting next year with AMD's HBM experience and Nvidia getting their effort out.
As for Nano, we'll see tomorrow.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
2,458 (0.72/day)
Let's make these things clear:

- R9 Nano will be faster product than R9 290X but not that fast to threaten any Fury;
- R9 Nano won't cost more than 630$, actually we expect price tag in line of around 450$;
- It won't be niche - it should be the new standard or paving the way for new generations of small cards;
- Fury X doesn't need custom boards - you won't achieve anything if you are seeking for guinness record clock heights. It's the best with water and let it please stay with WATER !
I think we're on the same side, and you still make me want to reevaluate my thought process.
1) Faster than a product that is one generation old, and functionally a twice baked 7970. Kinda depressing really.
2) Price tag pulled straight from your backside. We don't expect anything, you have expectations. My only expectation is that the price tag will be north of what I would spend on the third time around for this process node. Of course, that's not a definitive number. You seem to be measuring only by "less than a fury," but "more than a 390." Seems like you've got a real winner there, with an almost $300 wide window.
3) Do you understand what niche means? The niche application for this is either an HTPC or other SFF computer, where money seems to be no object. Most people have a budget, which means the same performance could be had cheaper at the cost of space. Given that gamers generally have spacious cases, budgetary restrictions, the desire for raw performance, or some combination thereof you've got a niche product. Being king of a niche isn't bad, but believing reigning over a niche makes you a success is stupid. Blackberry ruled the niche of work smart phones, but died because their niche was too shallow.
4) Derp. Just plain derp. I'm sorry, but if you're spending that kind of money on a card, you should be able to cool it however you want. I'd be happy with Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, or another partner to come forward with a 10% increased cost card ($63 at $630 is exactly that), that supported excellent overclocking on air but required three slots. I'd be happy with someone releasing an underclocked "efficiency" version of the card that was cheaper because they cut some corners. What makes some people angry is AMD putting their foot down, especially for a product that might not be fantastic (coil whine on the pumps?) for the huge price. Cards sell better when there are options. Options are predicated on being able to choose performance targets and design to them. Saying "Fury is meant to be under water" is like saying Fury isn't meant to run, so break its knees. It already has a perfectly fine wheel chair it can get around in.



Seriously, stop trying to talk for everyone. Every time you do it makes me angry, because you assume we agree with your points. If you think something, so be it. If you tell me I think something, you'd better be prepared to retract your points when they are demonstrably unfounded.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
586 (0.25/day)
Processor AMD FX-8320
Motherboard AsRock 970 PRO3 R2.0
Cooling Thermalright Ultra120 eXtreme + 2 LED Green fans
Memory 2 x 4096 MB DDR3-1333 A-Data
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE 4096M R9 FURY X 4G D5
Storage ST1000VX000 • SV35.6 Series™ 1000 GB 7200 rpm
Display(s) Acer S277HK wmidpp 27" 4K (3840 x 2160) IPS
Case Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus Black + Red Lights
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek
Power Supply OCZ ProXStream 1000W
Mouse Genius NetScroll 100X
Keyboard Logitech Wave
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.

But these things are mysteries for you.

Probably you are typing just to argue with someone who has better points than you.
I got used to your points and honestly - I am sick of them and want something better.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
17,847 (4.64/day)
It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.
While true (but by negligible amounts).. does it really matter? There are plenty of air cooled cards that last through their useful life... in fact, nearly all of them are/do. So how is that a selling point? People will want to junk the Fury X in 3/4 years like any other card, be it water or air.

You also have to think a bit more. If it saves a couple of watts (which is being generous, actually) The difference between, say, 1.2v @ 85C vs. 1.2v @ 65C which is where water would take it, there really isn't much savings in power, is there ((NO))? With that said, wouldn't the pump, which most use more watts than a fan, negate those negligible gains for power savings ((YES))?
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
27,164 (5.08/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 9900K@5.0GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix GTX 1080Ti
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
It is silly from your side to prefer air rather than water. You know that lower temperatures have positive effects - they lower power consumption and increase life time.
Lower temps have a barely measurable affect on power consumption, and nothing that would matter. They also won't extend the useful life of a graphics card. If those are your reasons for using liquid cooling then you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

They are plenty of negatives to liquid cooling too, so it is far from silly to prefer air. I water cooled my systems for years, but went back to air to avoid the hassle. Now I run an AIO because they largely eliminate most of the hassle, but they still aren't as nice as easy as air cooling.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,018 (0.31/day)
Location
Porto
System Name No name / Purple Haze
Processor Phenom II 1100T @ 3.8Ghz / Pentium 4 3.4 EE Gallatin @ 3.825Ghz
Motherboard MSI 970 Gaming/ Abit IC7-MAX3
Cooling CM Hyper 212X / Scythe Andy Samurai Master (CPU) - Modded Ati Silencer 5 rev. 2 (GPU)
Memory 8GB GEIL GB38GB2133C10ADC + 8GB G.Skill F3-14900CL9-4GBXL / 2x1GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC4000
Video Card(s) Asus R9 Fury X Strix (4096 SP's/1050 Mhz)/ PowerColor X850XT PE @ (600/1230) AGP + (HD3850 AGP)
Storage Samsung 250 GB / WD Caviar 160GB
Display(s) Benq XL2411T
Audio Device(s) motherboard / Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro + Front panel
Power Supply Tagan BZ 900W / Corsair HX620w
Mouse Zowie AM
Keyboard Qpad MK-50
Software Windows 7 Pro 64Bit / Windows XP
Benchmark Scores 64CU Fury: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11269229 / X850XT PE http://www.3dmark.com/3dm05/5532432
Sapphire 290X Tri-X's. They were in my Z97 Extreme6, so the top card had a nice gap to breath. It still hit 94°C and started to throttle after about half an hour of gaming.
Maybe the pasting job was not so good, Hawaii runs hot, but that should not happen on the tri-x cooler...
 
Top