Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD Radeon R9 NANO review(s)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] AMD Radeon R9 NANO review(s) - Page 71  

post #701 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothergeek View Post

Performance per watt is not the same as power consumption. Simply put, I've had a machine putting out 600+ watts and I don't really want one putting out half that, let alone 1500 watts. There are more people in this market than you think. I have zero desire to be stuck on the grid, ruining our world day by day with coal and radiation. NONE.

So why not buy the 970 mini? Or use an APU? Or go outside? Hypocrite much? rolleyes.gif

By any metric, the Nano's niche is exactly what I described: the dozen or so people on the planet who want to game at 1440p and also have a case that cannot fit any card larger than 6"

Fail card is fail.
Glorious 4K
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930k @ 4.625 GHz ASUS X99-A USB 3.1 EVGA GTX 1080 Ti @ 1950/12200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 240GB Seagate 600 Pro 240 GB WD Black 4TB Corsair H110 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Noctua NF-A14 x2 Corsair SP140 x2 Corsair AF120 x1 Corsair SP120 x4 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EVGA Titan X Hybrid AIO Windows 10 Professional x64 Sharp Aquos 4K LC-60UD27U Logitech K520 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX1200 Corsair Obsidian 450D Logitech Wireless Gaming Mouse G700 Sound Blaster Z Sound Card 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech Z906 Speakers Razer Chimaera 5.1 Headphones Sunbeam Rheosmart 6 fan controller 
  hide details  
Glorious 4K
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930k @ 4.625 GHz ASUS X99-A USB 3.1 EVGA GTX 1080 Ti @ 1950/12200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2666 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 240GB Seagate 600 Pro 240 GB WD Black 4TB Corsair H110 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Noctua NF-A14 x2 Corsair SP140 x2 Corsair AF120 x1 Corsair SP120 x4 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EVGA Titan X Hybrid AIO Windows 10 Professional x64 Sharp Aquos 4K LC-60UD27U Logitech K520 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX1200 Corsair Obsidian 450D Logitech Wireless Gaming Mouse G700 Sound Blaster Z Sound Card 
AudioAudioOther
Logitech Z906 Speakers Razer Chimaera 5.1 Headphones Sunbeam Rheosmart 6 fan controller 
  hide details  
post #702 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothergeek View Post

Certainly the title of this site isn't "undervolt.net" or something of the sort. But I'll be damned, they use the same software. At the end of the day, if I can hit a certain performance/watt at a certain consumption, that's what I will achieve. Enjoy your power bills!

You could under-volt a 980Ti until it hit the same performance as a Nano and get even better performance/watt then the Nano. The same trick (under-volt for efficiency) works on Maxwell too. It isn't as big of an improvement in efficiency because the stock 980Ti isn't pushed as close to the limit as the Fury X is but it still gains efficiency.
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
post #703 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

Well, since you can get 2 Fury X's for $1300, and apparently "form factor" means a lot to AMD and their users (aka Nano) for the same $1300, I'm guessing that the Fury X2 would be $1300.

Now if they were sensible, it would be about $1100 or $1200, but again, since form factor means paying full price for a lesser card, who knows, maybe they will charge $1500 for a single dual slot Fury X2 that is both fast AND "small". biggrin.gif

Either way, not way it will be less than $1000 until at least mid 2016. AMD has a long history of "sticking it" to their early adopters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMack70 View Post

I speculate $1500. If it's two full Fury X chips at ~1 GHz anyways. I can't imagine them releasing the card at $1000 if it's two full chips.
The holidays have been going on for SFF builders for a couple years now... ever since case manufacturers realized you can make awesome small cases that can fit full length graphics cards. The number of scenarios where the Nano makes sense is very small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

$1500 at least because AMD has a big head right now.
lachen.gif

My problem with Fury X2 is the following:
Fury X: 2x8 power pin
Nano: 1x8 power pin
Fury X2: 2x8 power pin (confirmed)

I`d say performance will most likely be close to Nano in CF, not Fury X in CF due to power restrictions. Most likely it will have "up to xxxxMHz" as well. So performance will be pretty far from like buying 2x Fury X.

I just don`t get how they can charge over $1000 for it. You should get more value when buying bigger quantity like you do with pretty much all types of merchandise. I get that HBM and package and die and everything is expensive, but performance wise its just not worth it. Which makes me wonder what the hell is the plan for this card.
post #704 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Now that we have seen the poor price on Fury X and Nano, anyone want to speculate Fury X2 price?
Are we talking over $1000 or is it a tiny hope we can get it for about $999?

don't expect a good price. remember with the 295X2 and worse, the Titan Z, AMD/Nvidia essentially added 1+1 and got 3 relative to what a single 290X and Titan Black cost.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
post #705 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

You could under-volt a 980Ti until it hit the same performance as a Nano and get even better performance/watt then the Nano. The same trick (under-volt for efficiency) works on Maxwell too. It isn't as big of an improvement in efficiency because the stock 980Ti isn't pushed as close to the limit as the Fury X is but it still gains efficiency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but clock speeds are more for frame rates, but overclocking HBM yields far greater bandwidth potential for 4k. Just the VRAM is an issue.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
FX-8320 Gigabyte 990FXA UD3 Powercolor AX6850 Powercolor AX6850 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP CAS7 1600 (2 x 4GB) Samsung 840 Series Lite-On DVD-RW Corsair H80 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Arctic Twin Turbo ll x2 Corsair AF140 x3 Corsair SP120 x2 Windows 7 Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32LH40 1080p 120Hz Interpolated 32" LCD Razer Arctosa Seasonic X650 Corsair 300R Windowed 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Razer Vespula Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
FX-8320 Gigabyte 990FXA UD3 Powercolor AX6850 Powercolor AX6850 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP CAS7 1600 (2 x 4GB) Samsung 840 Series Lite-On DVD-RW Corsair H80 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Arctic Twin Turbo ll x2 Corsair AF140 x3 Corsair SP120 x2 Windows 7 Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32LH40 1080p 120Hz Interpolated 32" LCD Razer Arctosa Seasonic X650 Corsair 300R Windowed 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Razer Vespula Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
  hide details  
post #706 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajloz View Post

Who the heck needs a small card with that price tag and and less performance then the top 980 ti and fury--x . evryone here loves big cards with gigantic Heat pipes that storm the heat evrywhere like giant v6 v8 or w12 engines (row power) devil.gif .
Now days every small case can sit a 300mm card . and this card doesnt have the power for 4k .
WHERE IS THE TOP TIER ? we need dual Fuji cip card . who cares of price if you got the Top Gpu on the market . Make the AMD Fan Boys happy again.
My opinion this card is a joke . inch per watt what? this is like ( mine is stronger then yours per inch but yours is more stronger ) .

People like me need a card with that performance, but certainly not that price tag. Just saying we exist... we even have a cool little subforum....

we matter...

don't touch our staplers....

we could burn the whole forum down...
My Rig
(12 items)
 
Wife's Rig
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8 1.35v Asrock X370 Taichi EVGA GTX1080Ti SC Black 16GB G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL 14 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OS: 240GB Kingston SSD Backup: 480GB PNY SSD Games: 500GB Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSD Scratch: 1TB Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSD 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Cryorig H5 Universal Windows 10 Home 64-bit Seasonic 750W 80+ Gold Phanteks Eclipse P400-TG 
  hide details  
My Rig
(12 items)
 
Wife's Rig
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8 1.35v Asrock X370 Taichi EVGA GTX1080Ti SC Black 16GB G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL 14 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OS: 240GB Kingston SSD Backup: 480GB PNY SSD Games: 500GB Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSD Scratch: 1TB Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSD 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Cryorig H5 Universal Windows 10 Home 64-bit Seasonic 750W 80+ Gold Phanteks Eclipse P400-TG 
  hide details  
post #707 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothergeek View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but clock speeds are more for frame rates, but overclocking HBM yields far greater bandwidth potential for 4k. Just the VRAM is an issue.

The problem is the rest of the chip isn't about to provide enough information to flood that bandwidth. The gtx 980 ti is doing mostly fine with a meager 336gb/sec of bandwidth.

Heck the gtx 980 is doing incredible with 224gb/sec of bandwidth. Considering Nano has more than twice the bandwidth of a gtx 980 but performs about 10% better, it clear that the limiting factor isn't memory bandwidth but more to do with the limitations of 28nm and bottlenecks in the GCN architecture.

When we can pack cards twice as powerful as current cards, HBM or HMC will be needed. But as is, it's a bit too early.
post #708 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothergeek View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but clock speeds are more for frame rates, but overclocking HBM yields far greater bandwidth potential for 4k. Just the VRAM is an issue.

Overclocking the memory does improve frame rates at 4K but not as much as overclocking the core does. What is bandwidth needed for at 4K if not frame rates?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Both core speed and memory bandwidth contribute to frame rate but neither GM200 or Fiji are particularly bandwidth limited at 4K.

Declocking the GDDR5 on Maxwell would give a much bigger power savings compared to declocking HBM but I was assuming the memory would be left at stock.
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
Desktop
(19 items)
 
RAID
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i9-7900X @ 4.7GHz Asus ROG Rampage VI Apex Titan X (Pascal) @ 2.05GHz 32GB DDR4 4000-17-17-17-37 CR1 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
480GB - Intel Optane 900P 2TB - Samsung 960 Pro EK Monoblock + GPU + 560 Rad Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Acer XB270HU bprz HTC Vive LG OLED55C7P Logitech G810 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic PRIME 1200 Platinum Old Marble Slab Logitech G900 Logitech G440 
AudioAudioOther
Sennheiser HD 600 Creative SoundBlasterX AE-5 Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5960X @ 4.2GHz Asus Rampage 5 Extreme Nvidia GeForce GT 545 32GB DDR4 (2400-12-12-12-28-1T) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB HGST NAS 4TB x8 - 21.8TB RAID6 Western Digital Black 4TB Samsung SH-S183L 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 10 Pro Asus VG278H WASD "CODE" Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseOther
SeaSonic Platinum-1000 DIYPC Alpha-GT3 Logitech G700s Mellanox ConnectX-3 MCX312A-XCBT 10 GbE Adapter 
Other
Adaptec RAID 71605 
  hide details  
post #709 of 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post

The problem is the rest of the chip isn't about to provide enough information to flood that bandwidth. The gtx 980 ti is doing mostly fine with a meager 336gb/sec of bandwidth.

Heck the gtx 980 is doing incredible with 224gb/sec of bandwidth. Considering Nano has more than twice the bandwidth of a gtx 980 but performs about 10% better, it clear that the limiting factor isn't memory bandwidth but more to do with the limitations of 28nm and bottlenecks in the GCN architecture.

When we can pack cards twice as powerful as current cards, HBM or HMC will be needed. But as is, it's a bit too early.

Or we're looking at the wrong benchmarks... In memory intensive applications such as Batman and BF4, HBM OC showed a great performance gain from a minimal memory speed increase of 70mhz via MSI Afterburner. I would suspect an even greater yield at high resolutions.

Anything early isn't early so much as late. in AMD's case, the only thing early about it is how far HBM will takeoff in such a short span of time, if Pascal and HBM2 arrive on time according to alleged specifications. Such is the price to pay for early adopters.
Edited by anothergeek - 9/21/15 at 1:40pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
FX-8320 Gigabyte 990FXA UD3 Powercolor AX6850 Powercolor AX6850 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP CAS7 1600 (2 x 4GB) Samsung 840 Series Lite-On DVD-RW Corsair H80 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Arctic Twin Turbo ll x2 Corsair AF140 x3 Corsair SP120 x2 Windows 7 Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32LH40 1080p 120Hz Interpolated 32" LCD Razer Arctosa Seasonic X650 Corsair 300R Windowed 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Razer Vespula Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
FX-8320 Gigabyte 990FXA UD3 Powercolor AX6850 Powercolor AX6850 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP CAS7 1600 (2 x 4GB) Samsung 840 Series Lite-On DVD-RW Corsair H80 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Arctic Twin Turbo ll x2 Corsair AF140 x3 Corsair SP120 x2 Windows 7 Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32LH40 1080p 120Hz Interpolated 32" LCD Razer Arctosa Seasonic X650 Corsair 300R Windowed 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Razer Vespula Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
  hide details  
post #710 of 742
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian View Post

You could under-volt a 980Ti until it hit the same performance as a Nano and get even better performance/watt then the Nano. The same trick (under-volt for efficiency) works on Maxwell too. It isn't as big of an improvement in efficiency because the stock 980Ti isn't pushed as close to the limit as the Fury X is but it still gains efficiency.

980Ti still is slightly power efficient than R9 Nano. That is with GDDR5. If it used HBM too, it would be even better since HBM use about 25W less.
Thats confirming that there isnt any magical "binning" for the Nano. Just Fury X cores with restricted specs. Even R9 Fury got similar efficiency as Nano

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD Radeon R9 NANO review(s)