Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Videocardz]AMD Radeon R9 Nano confirmed to feature 4096 Stream Cores (up to 1000MHz)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Videocardz]AMD Radeon R9 Nano confirmed to feature 4096 Stream Cores (up to 1000MHz) - Page 7

post #61 of 273
Wouldnt be better for AMD enable the locked Fury to 3840SP and undervolt/clock and then sell it for R9 Fury`s Price
  
Reply
  
Reply
post #62 of 273
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HanSomPa View Post

No. Im pretty sure it'll be hot as hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nvidia Fanboy View Post

This is so confusing. The Fury X is not even 10% faster than the Fury. Now the Nano will be somewhere between the performance of these two? What's the point of releasing 3 cards at 3 very different price points that perform so similarly?

Water cooled Fiji - Fury X - $650
Air cooled Fiji - Fury - $550
Micro Fiji - R9 Nano - $450?

The top 2 got overclocking potential and great cooling. The last one is more for those that dont want to overclock and is satisfied with the performance you get on stock. With R9 Nano you are bound by thermals (the tiny fan can only cool that much) and power (1x8pin ensure its pushed to the max at stock clocks).
post #63 of 273
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Just like the famous 980Ti vs. Fury X slides from AMD it seems like they again did all of their testing with 0xAF:


There is some pretty interesting facts you can find on that slide which I`m surprised nobody else have commented or noticed:


  • Far Cry 4K:
    290X: 27.2FPS
    R9 Nano: 38FPS

    This is a pretty valid and interesting comparison because its AMD vs AMD, and not AMD vs Nvidia which may skew the result.
    So straight of the bat the R9 Nano looks to be about 40% faster than R9 290X in Far Cry 4!
  • R9 Nano have a max temperature limit of 75C while 290X have a 95C limit. Meaning thats where the GPU can reach 1000MHz but will probably start to throttle once it hits the 75C. Water cooling block anyone...?!
  • Board power for 290X according to AMD is 250W. TechPowerUp have measured that to reach up to 282W.
    Board power for R9 Nano is 175W. Which means that Nano can probably also go higher to almost 200W! That makes it more believable regarding 4096 cores @ 1000MHz.
  • Noise target for the 290X reference is 58dB while R9 Nano noise target is only at 42dB. Meaning it should run pretty quiet compared.


This card sounds more impressive the more I read about it!
Edited by iLeakStuff - 8/26/15 at 12:28pm
post #64 of 273
Thread Starter 
Another interesting factoid is that the R9 Nano only have 4 ACE units while Fury X have 8 ACE units.
R9 Nano seems to have something called HWS (2 of them) which is not present on Fury X.

Does anyone knows what it is and perhaps what half the ACE units means in terms of performance?


R9 Nano




Fury X
post #65 of 273
Probably it a different name of ACE the HWS
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Reply
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

There is some pretty interesting facts you can find on that slide which I`m surprised nobody else have commented or noticed:


  • Far Cry 4K:
    290X: 27.2FPS
    R9 Nano: 38FPS

    This is a pretty valid and interesting comparison because its AMD vs AMD, and not AMD vs Nvidia which may skew the result.
    So straight of the bat the R9 Nano looks to be about 40% faster than R9 290X in Far Cry 4!
  • R9 Nano have a max temperature limit of 75C while 290X have a 95C limit. Meaning thats where the GPU can reach 1000MHz but will probably start to throttle once it hits the 75C. Water cooling block anyone...?!
  • Board power for 290X according to AMD is 250W. TechPowerUp have measured that to reach up to 282W.
    Board power for R9 Nano is 175W. Which means that Nano can probably also go higher to almost 200W! That makes it more believable regarding 4096 cores @ 1000MHz.
  • Noise target for the 290X reference is 58dB while R9 Nano noise target is only at 42dB. Meaning it should run pretty quiet compared.


This card sounds more impressive the more I read about it!

Those Far Cry 4 results put the card pretty close to Fury X performance:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/19

http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/page7.html

Curious if they were running those Nano tests in a really cold room to keep the card from throttling. tongue.gif
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
post #67 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post


Water cooled Fiji - Fury X - $650
Air cooled Fiji - Fury - $550
Micro Fiji - R9 Nano - $450?

The top 2 got overclocking potential and great cooling. The last one is more for those that dont want to overclock and is satisfied with the performance you get on stock. With R9 Nano you are bound by thermals (the tiny fan can only cool that much) and power (1x8pin ensure its pushed to the max at stock clocks).

That's AMD leaving $200 on the table for every Nano sold (since they are still selling out of Fury X). Can't see that kind of pricing with a full Fiji chip. I'm leaning more toward $599 now.

Edit: and why does that image with the specs say "used to simulate GPU performance" in the line where it details the settings? What is it simulating? And why are the Nano and 290X using different driver versions?
Edited by Forceman - 8/26/15 at 12:53pm
post #68 of 273
Thread Starter 
Videocardz have posted all the slides that will be released tomorrow when NDA ends lol. Head to their site if you want to check them out
http://videocardz.com/57444/amd-launches-radeon-r9-nano

Couple of interesting slides:









30% faster than 290X puts it at 97.5%
Patience may have paid of for those that skipped Fury and 390X. I`m glad I did. $450 price now and I might get two Nano`s and put them in Crossfire biggrin.gif


Edited by iLeakStuff - 8/26/15 at 12:57pm
post #69 of 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Another interesting factoid is that the R9 Nano only have 4 ACE units while Fury X have 8 ACE units.
R9 Nano seems to have something called HWS (2 of them) which is not present on Fury X.

Does anyone knows what it is and perhaps what half the ACE units means in terms of performance?
The ACEs allow the GPU to execute different tasks in parallel (asynchronous shading). It's very useful for heavy compute work loads, but AMD even admitted that 8 ACEs is likely overkill for most gaming tasks, and DX11 titles can't even take advantage of asynchronous shading.

As far as HWS goes, the only thing I can find in terms of GPU technology are some white papers discussing a theoretical "Hybrid Warp Size" mechanism, that basically allows the GPU to more efficiently handle complicated commands. I don't know if this is what the HWS is referring to, though.

So assuming Fury Nano is indeed different silicon, AMD is likely shedding complexity and out-right compute performance in favor of lower power consumption and increased core efficiency.
post #70 of 273
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

Those Far Cry 4 results put the card pretty close to Fury X performance:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/19

http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/page7.html

Curious if they were running those Nano tests in a really cold room to keep the card from throttling. tongue.gif

Yeah the R9 Nano looks like it will come pretty close to Fury X indeed.
lol who knows if AMD cheated a bit with the cooling to make it operate below 75C. I don`t think so though, because the card seems like it will run both cool and quiet judging from the slides.

We shall see

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

That's AMD leaving $200 on the table for every Nano sold (since they are still selling out of Fury X). Can't see that kind of pricing with a full Fiji chip. I'm leaning more toward $599 now.
$599? I think you are nuts if you think a much bigger card with massive fans and more VRM`s and power envelope like Fury will cost less than R9 Nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

The ACEs allow the GPU to execute different tasks in parallel (asynchronous shading). It's very useful for heavy compute work loads, but AMD even admitted that 8 ACEs is likely overkill for most gaming tasks, and DX11 titles can't even take advantage of asynchronous shading.

As far as HWS goes, the only thing I can find in terms of GPU technology are some white papers discussing a theoretical "Hybrid Warp Size" mechanism, that basically allows the GPU to more efficiently handle complicated commands. I don't know if this is what the HWS is referring to, though.

So assuming Fury Nano is indeed different silicon, AMD is likely shedding complexity and out-right compute performance in favor of lower power consumption and increased core efficiency.

Thanks for the explanation man. Perhaps this is one of the reasons how they got the card to be a little more efficient indeed
Edited by iLeakStuff - 8/26/15 at 1:06pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Videocardz]AMD Radeon R9 Nano confirmed to feature 4096 Stream Cores (up to 1000MHz)