AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review: Mini-ITX 4K gaming

[dividebyzero]

The final review score is a bit harsh and doesn't mention the main reason the card should have a lower score, cost. Coil whine and a fan that's a bit too loud are very weak reasons to give a card a 75.

It probably would have received a better score had the launches been reversed. If AMD had started out with the Nano it would have been a bit more sensational. AMD then could have launched the Fury X as basically an overclocked version with added AIO cooling as an no-cost bonus. As it stands, the Nano has to be compared with the Fury X - same price, lower performance, lower bill of materials. Size isn't a major factor since AMD have already played that card with the Fury X, which is only a nominal 2cm longer (which is in reality actually less if you factor in the Nano's power plug placement). Knowing what AMD know now, I suspect that is the course they might have taken, but at the time needed to take a gamble on the absolute performance part.
If the Fury X was a 12" monster card I could see more differentiation, but as it stands, it can be used in the vast majority of SFF systems where the Nano is targeted

I'm honestly surprised that this card didn't get a higher rating, given that it's form factor and power draw allow it to easily slot into more compact and less power hungry systems.

Well, the Fury X received an 85. To pack the card into a system small enough to take the Fury X out of the running there is a trade off in heat generation and noise output. Power might be an issue, but there are plenty of reasonable wattage compact modular PSUs on the market. This Silverstone unit is rated at 480W on the 12V rail.
In the end the scoring is subjective for the usage scenario. 11% lower score for a card that offers 10% less performance and ships without the AIO for the same price seems about right to me. The 2cm length difference, fan noise, possible coil whine, and board power limits will mean different things to different people depending upon usage scenario, system build and placement, and whether overclocking is part of the equation.

For some demonstrable facts, please let them test the DX12 capabilities of competing cards only for the reason to prove the capability of future tech, so I believe we like our purchases to be future proof. Or you will never use DX12 in the future as long as AMD leads the game?

Well maybe you can either make a leap of faith, or do what most other people will do - which is upgrade when DX12 titles are released and it becomes more viable to do so and the cards will be cheaper. Or are you expecting the Fury line to get more expensive? I'm confused on this point because your original post said:

The current price is a premium paid by early adopters and I'm expecting to drop in the next weeks.

If you are in such a hurry to pay the premium, I really wouldn't wait around for DX12.
I suspect you just wanted an easy kill. A very early benchmark of a pre-beta game before the competition had its driver implementation ready.
Of the 22 Nano reviews I've read, only 3 have a DX12 benchmark included (and 2 of them have strong caveats attached), so Steve is in good company since PC Perspective, Anandtech, ComputerBase, Hardware France, Hardware.info, Hexus, and a host of other sites omitted it from their reviews...but since it seems to be a major concern to you and your prospective buying, here's Hilbert's and tallies closely with the THW review (as it should since the bench is scripted)

 

[mosu]

Because I believe you honestly want to be better informed, please read this:https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/213519-asynchronous-shading-amd-nvidia-and-dx12-what-we-know-so-far/2

 

[SuperVeloce]

Amazingly designed card. And I like the cooler, this vapor+pipe single fan radiator really is something special. But as always, there must be something wrong with it. What's with all this coil-whining from AMD and Nvidia?! It was not acceptable on a much cheaper 970 or 290(x) and it is not acceptable now! We know they could use appropriate (pricier) coils and for that price we expect nothing less.

 

[dividebyzero]

Because I believe you honestly want to be better informed, please read this:https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ing-amd-nvidia-and-dx12-what-we-know-so-far/2

I this was intended for me, thanks but I read it some time ago, and it just reinforces what I just wrote

or do what most other people will do - which is upgrade when DX12 titles are released and it becomes more viable to do so and the cards will be cheaper.

...and from the article you just linked to

Right now, the smart thing to do is wait and see how this plays out. I stand by Ashes of the Singularity as a solid early look at DX12 performance, but it’s one game, on early drivers, in a just-released OS. Its developers readily acknowledge that it should not be treated as the be-all, end-all of DX12 performance, and I agree with them. If you’re this concerned about how DX12 will evolve, wait another 6-12 months for more games, as well as AMD and Nvidia’s next-generation cards on 14/16nm before making a major purchase.

Besides, it is a pretty basic snapshot aimed at the non-technically minded - a broad outline. There are plenty of more in depth discussions on various aspects of Async compute as well as other DX12 features available to read.

 

[Evernessince]

It probably would have received a better score had the launches been reversed. If AMD had started out with the Nano it would have been a bit more sensational. AMD then could have launched the Fury X as basically an overclocked version with added AIO cooling as an no-cost bonus. As it stands, the Nano has to be compared with the Fury X - same price, lower performance, lower bill of materials. Size isn't a major factor since AMD have already played that card with the Fury X, which is only a nominal 2cm longer (which is in reality actually less if you factor in the Nano's power plug placement). Knowing what AMD know now, I suspect that is the course they might have taken, but at the time needed to take a gamble on the absolute performance part.
If the Fury X was a 12" monster card I could see more differentiation, but as it stands, it can be used in the vast majority of SFF systems where the Nano is targeted


Well, the Fury X received an 85. To pack the card into a system small enough to take the Fury X out of the running there is a trade off in heat generation and noise output. Power might be an issue, but there are plenty of reasonable wattage compact modular PSUs on the market. This Silverstone unit is rated at 480W on the 12V rail.
In the end the scoring is subjective for the usage scenario. 11% lower score for a card that offers 10% less performance and ships without the AIO for the same price seems about right to me. The 2cm length difference, fan noise, possible coil whine, and board power limits will mean different things to different people depending upon usage scenario, system build and placement, and whether overclocking is part of the equation.

Well maybe you can either make a leap of faith, or do what most other people will do - which is upgrade when DX12 titles are released and it becomes more viable to do so and the cards will be cheaper. Or are you expecting the Fury line to get more expensive? I'm confused on this point because your original post said:

If you are in such a hurry to pay the premium, I really wouldn't wait around for DX12.
I suspect you just wanted an easy kill. A very early benchmark of a pre-beta game before the competition had its driver implementation ready.
Of the 22 Nano reviews I've read, only 3 have a DX12 benchmark included (and 2 of them have strong caveats attached), so Steve is in good company since PC Perspective, Anandtech, ComputerBase, Hardware France, Hardware.info, Hexus, and a host of other sites omitted it from their reviews...but since it seems to be a major concern to you and your prospective buying, here's Hilbert's and tallies closely with the THW review (as it should since the bench is scripted)

I agree that the Fury Nano and Fury X are too similar, size wise. I think they would have been better off seeing if they could improve the efficiency even more by lowering clocks and targeting laptops and very small form factors.

 

[deemon]

And yet in the same results you can see the 980ti having some trouble getting to 144 at 1080p. the amd cards scale better with resolution (partially because they would hit a cpu bottleneck at lower res which anand pointed out for at least one of those results you posted).

Which, in fact, moreover proofs what I was saying in the first place. 4k in gaming on average enthusiast level is not here yet (I would think that average gaming enthusiast can afford GPU inbetween 300 and 500€/$). If you need to buy 2 highend cards, each costing more than 600€/$, to enjoy high quality 4k picture on barely tolerable level, it's not ready yet.

In fact, I don't even know one single person in real life, who has 4k display ... be it TV or monitor ... because there's NOTHING to do with it at this day - best video quality is 1080p (in both streaming and BluRay), buying hardware to play games on 4k costs 6 times the cost of the display... so it's also not worth it for gamers.

 

[dividebyzero]

I agree that the Fury Nano and Fury X are too similar, size wise. I think they would have been better off seeing if they could improve the efficiency even more by lowering clocks and targeting laptops and very small form factors.

This is a bit of a head scratcher for me at the moment. Nvidia is very publicly prepping the GTX 990M mobile part for imminent release- basically a full GTX 980 that OEMs can clock/TDP configure for their own individual needs up to 185W. Bearing in mind Nano has similar efficiency, a few high-end gaming laptop design wins might have done wonders for marketing, as would OEM SFF's - yet Asus's (both an Nvidia and AMD OEM/AIC) just announced G20CB - an ideal product for Nano I would have thought, features almost entirely Nvidia graphics excepting the lower tier R9 380.

 

[Evernessince]

This is a bit of a head scratcher for me at the moment. Nvidia is very publicly prepping the GTX 990M mobile part for imminent release- basically a full GTX 980 that OEMs can clock/TDP configure for their own individual needs up to 185W. Bearing in mind Nano has similar efficiency, a few high-end gaming laptop design wins might have done wonders for marketing, as would OEM SFF's - yet Asus's (both an Nvidia and AMD OEM/AIC) just announced G20CB - an ideal product for Nano I would have thought, features almost entirely Nvidia graphics excepting the lower tier R9 380.

I would suspect it has something to do with the halo effect Nvidia is currently experience. Allot of people just won't even consider AMD cards just because they aren't seen as a good brand. Even if AMD did have better solutions available, Nvidia has always had greater pull on OEMs, and AMD wouldn't be able to get a product on the market that showcases what they have.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Steve, good stuff as usual. I think you guys should have put the power consumption as a pro. It uses about 40w less than a 980ti yet almost matches it in performance. It's a beast of a card. I wish AMD priced it lower though. It is a shame because maybe even a $50 price reduction would have make it a good option.

 

[hover389]

If the 390X goes for $429 then it would make much more sense to price their Fury models at $499 and the Fury X right at $550 since the only thing that really separates the Fury versus Fury X is the watercooler.

Quick fact check: Fury vs Fury X have more differences than just the water cooler. Look up their specs