Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AMD Nano
#1
Is it just me, or is this thing pretty "meh" unless you have need to build a very small LAN party case? (or live in a dorm)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/show...7th-Launch
Reply
#2
Depending on the price it could be quite good.
Reply
#3
Most people who wanted a card like this have a gtx970 mini for 300$
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-ge...-mini.html

[Image: index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=8909]
Reply
#4
Eh happy medium long time no see. Smile
Reply
#5
(08-27-2015, 05:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Eh happy medium long time no see. Smile

Hey man nice to see you also.

AMD could have hit a home run if the Nano was...

1.released last year
2. for ~ 350$
3. slightly faster than a 970
4. with a single 6 pin power connector.

Its too late now.
Reply
#6
(08-27-2015, 07:37 AM)happy medium Wrote:
(08-27-2015, 05:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Eh happy medium long time no see. Smile

Hey man nice to see you also.

AMD could have hit a home run if the Nano was...

1.released last year
2. for ~ 350$
3. slightly faster than a 970
4. with a single 6 pin power connector.

Its too late now.

This all seems reasonable.

I don't get AMD with this launch.

If the Fury X had launched for $550, instant winner.

If the Fury had launched for $450, instant winner.

And if this launches for $300, instant winner.

At those prices AMD would have cleaned house and taken back a ton of much needed market share. Instead they pretended 75% of the world was not buying NVIDIA and that they still had half the discrete market waiting for them.

This was the time to make a big move, sacrifice some margin for a big swing in market share.
Reply
#7
Aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddddd AMD launches the R9 Nano at USD 649: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-u...r-gtx-980/
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#8
(08-27-2015, 09:54 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddddd AMD launches the R9 Nano at USD 649: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-u...r-gtx-980/

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd NVIDIA gets to 85% discrete market share in Q3
Reply
#9
Am I the only one who seriously doubts AMD's claims on 8.2 TFLOPs peformance for the Nano, vs 7.2 TFLOPs for the Fury non-X?

Both are running at the same "max" boost clock of 1GHz, and the Nano is fully unlocked just like the Fury X.

All while using that tiny 10-15mm thick radial fan, while being super quiet???

Let's see AMD cross their fingers so hard that most GPU review sites will only run very short benchmarks when the GPU is already cool (just so that it will beat 290X let alone 390X - AMD is only claiming it to beat 290X instead of 390X). In fact, I'm already seeing blisters on AMD's fingers from being crossed too hard. All for $649.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#10
(08-27-2015, 04:52 AM)happy medium Wrote: Most people who wanted a card like this have a gtx970 mini for 300$
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-ge...-mini.html

[Image: index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=8909]

Ha!  So much for AMD's furious attempts with the Nano - it might be just a tad bit faster than the 970, but it would have to consume about 30W more or so (dumping more heat into the ITX case).  Plus it means giving up PhysX, better driver support and S3D support, TXAA, forced ambient occlusion on many older games, etc.. 

$649 = FAIL.

What AMD needs is a take-over/buy-out from a company that fully understands the technological importance of the dGPU race.  Even if AMD could get 100,000 gaming enthusiasts to cough up $649, this would only turn out to be $64.9 million dollars in revenue, not counting the cost of manufacture and the R&D budget spent. 

Perhaps it is that AMD knows they could only produce maybe 5,000 of these cherry-picked cards for the next couple months, so AMD is just proud to see them sell for $649 a pop.  The net profit from selling even 10,000 this year would mean about $4 million dollars or so, after the cost of manufacture.  Unfortunately, the R&D cost for the whole Fury series probably cost at least 10 times that. 

AMD is simply saying to the potential investors, "Hey, look at me, I can still make kick-ass GPU's, so buy me out for $10 billion, please!!!"
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#11
I don't see mini cards as a big untapped market. NVIDIA always seems to have a card or two like that mini 970, you just don't hear much about them.

AMD is REALLY dreaming thinking people are coughing up $649 for that over a $350 mini 970. There just isn't $300 more performance there, and I share your doubts on long term gaming with that chip air cooled SFF.
Reply
#12
http://techreport.com/review/28912/tiny-...lop-at-650
Quote:The reason for the difference in FPS averages was clear when we looked back at the footnotes of AMD's document supplying the numbers. The firm tested the cards with a very particular formula in order to achieve its results for the Fury X—and it has carried over that formula when generating the R9 Nano results you see above. The basic approach is to test exclusively in 4K with high-quality shader effects and post-process anti-aliasing, but to soft-pedal on texture filtering and mulitsampled edge anti-aliasing.

Here's how AMD says it tested the games in the Nano benchmark results above, based on the footnotes of its presentation:

That's a pretty weird combination of settings, all things considered. 4K is one of the highest resolutions you can get in a display today, and yet we've compromised dramatically on image quality via low-rent texture filtering and edge AA methods.

Here's a quick illustration of the difference in texture quality between 0X and 16X anisotropic filtering:
[Image: gtav-0x.jpg]
Without anisotropic filtering

[Image: gtav-16x.jpg]
With 16X anisotropic filtering

The difference in quality between post-process AA methods like SMAA/FXAA and more traditional methods like MSAA isn't quite so dramatic, but post-process AA methods aren't aware of sub-pixel geometry, so they sometimes get things wrong. For example:
[Image: mill-comparo.jpg]
FXAA (left) cannot resolve the fine geometry that a sub-pixel-aware technique like MSAA or SSAA can (right)

I can't imagine building a high-end gaming rig, getting a 4K monitor and a fancy video card for it, and then tweaking games to compromise image quality in such basic ways.

So why is AMD testing in this fashion? Probably because it plays to the Fiji GPU's strengths—that enormous shader array—while not leaning so hard on its potential areas of relative weakness, like ROP throughput (for MSAA resolve), texturing (for anisotropic filtering), and small triangles (since polys are relatively smaller at lower resolutions). Taking this peculiar path likely puts the R9 Nano in the best possible competitive light. In the absence of independent reviews, those AMD-provided numbers are sure to circulate widely online. Trouble is, AMD could be setting up the R9 Nano to be a disappointment once it gets into the hands of reviewers and consumers.

So there you have AMD's performance numbers with some proper context. My advice: wait for the reviews before you decide to jump on an R9 Nano. It may well be a very good product. Heck, it looks super-cool. But manufacturer-provided performance numbers often tell a different story than one might hope.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/212973...x-inch-gpu
Quote:AMD is projecting that the Radeon R9 Nano will compare extremely well against the GTX 970 Mini, as shown below:
[Image: Nano-vs-GTX970.png]
After some of the issues surrounding the Fury X’s early benchmark leaks, many people will give these results a gimlet eye. According to the footnotes published in AMD’s presentation, Far Cry 4 was tested at 4K at the Ultra High preset with 0x MSAA and 0x AF. AMD used its own Catalyst 15.201 and compared against Nvidia’s 355.60 WHQL driver. All of the additional games were tested at High detail and 4K, with no MSAA or AF forced on or manually selected. FXAA was used in several titles, but it has a minimal impact on GPU performance.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#13
[Image: turkey210114.jpg]
Reply
#14
This is not going to end well for AMD.

I can't believe they released PR slides with 0X AF.

You might get away with no AA or FXAA at 4K, but no AF is crazy as the screens above show. Have been using 16X AF for many, many years.
Reply
#15
Don't you guys know you can't trust review sites. They are all under nvidia's spell.

AMDs results are all you need, the best in the planet. They would never lie or mislead......

That is a fact.

/sarcasm

So AMD isn't sending out review samples? How cool is that?
There is no way that this thing will run at 1000mhz sustained. Never ever ever.
Reply
#16
(08-28-2015, 06:14 AM)ocre Wrote: Don't you guys know you can't trust review sites.  They are all under nvidia's spell.

AMDs results are all you need, the best in the planet.  They would never lie or mislead......

That is a fact.  

/sarcasm

So AMD isn't sending out review samples?  How cool is that?
There is no way that this thing will run at 1000mhz sustained.  Never ever ever.

Why do you need review samples?!

AMD has shown you clearly that the Nano is much faster than the mini 970 at the settings 99% of gamers use:

4K 0X AA, 0X AF

/sarcasm


I can see why they might do no AA or FXAA at 4K, the PPI of 4K is basically like running AA. (AA is the solution to not enough PPI)

The AF part is ridiculous. (not to mention FXAA has so little performance hit you'd think they'd want that just so their benches have a type of AA)
Reply
#17
This is probably the biggest lie of a paper launch ever (the most misleading) for a single-GPU card in all of our history.

On top of that, refusing to send samples to reviewers means:
1) AMD is deliberately trying to get away with misleading PC gamers with a PR launch.
2) The supply will be so limited - perhaps even less than 5K units of golden cherry-picked chips used for Nano

Yet, AMD will NOT be able to get away with it at the end - especially since the reviewers serious enough to buy the card for themselves and put it to a good test will point out how misleading AMD's slides were. Of course, AMD is trying to make it "impossible" for them to make direct comparisons by using (or forcing) "0X AF" but many games with high quality settings include AF enhancements as part of it. The same goes for AA. This would require changing the default Catalyst control panel settings - something all reviewers never do as part of their reviewing etiquette.

Now that some fans (and some serious reviewers) already know better - we might see at least 1 big-time reviewer like Tomshardware doing a direct comparison with AF and AA disabled.

My bet is that most of the gamers who buy the Nano for $649 would be swapping out the heatsink for some beefy aftermarket heatsink like the Accelero Xtreme, or doing a custom watercooling job on it. Is there even any serious aftermarket fan/heatsink available that would actually fit this tiny card, though??
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#18
(08-28-2015, 09:13 PM)BoFox Wrote: This is probably the biggest lie of a paper launch ever (the most misleading) for a single-GPU card in all of our history.  

On top of that, refusing to send samples to reviewers means:
1)  AMD is deliberately trying to get away with misleading PC gamers with a PR launch.  
2)  The supply will be so limited - perhaps even less than 5K units of golden cherry-picked chips used for Nano

Yet, AMD will NOT be able to get away with it at the end - especially since the reviewers serious enough to buy the card for themselves and put it to a good test will point out how misleading AMD's slides were.  Of course, AMD is trying to make it "impossible" for them to make direct comparisons by using (or forcing) "0X AF" but many games with high quality settings include AF enhancements as part of it.  The same goes for AA.  This would require changing the default Catalyst control panel settings - something all reviewers never do as part of their reviewing etiquette.  

Now that some fans (and some serious reviewers) already know better - we might see at least 1 big-time reviewer like Tomshardware doing a direct comparison with AF and AA disabled.  

My bet is that most of the gamers who buy the Nano for $649 would be swapping out the heatsink for some beefy aftermarket heatsink like the Accelero Xtreme, or doing a custom watercooling job on it.  Is there even any serious aftermarket fan/heatsink available that would actually fit this tiny card, though??

You are probably correct on all counts.

What I don't get I people who spend $650 on video cards largely aren't foolish enough to do so on PR benches.

Even sadder with this thing is people will STILL probably be duped because unless review sites test it in the closed mini ITX cases it's built for, and extended play happens, they won't see the throttling that will occur in those conditions.

If you tried to run 4K with AA/AF on these cards in a closed case the clocks probably reduce to around 500MHz, or the card goes supernova, melts through your case, house, and heads for China through the Earth. (and warms up the Earth's lava core as it passes through)
Reply
#19
(08-28-2015, 05:24 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-28-2015, 06:14 AM)ocre Wrote: Don't you guys know you can't trust review sites.  They are all under nvidia's spell.

AMDs results are all you need, the best in the planet.  They would never lie or mislead......

That is a fact.  

/sarcasm

So AMD isn't sending out review samples?  How cool is that?
There is no way that this thing will run at 1000mhz sustained.  Never ever ever.

Why do you need review samples?!

AMD has shown you clearly that the Nano is much faster than the mini 970 at the settings 99% of gamers use:

4K 0X AA, 0X AF

/sarcasm


I can see why they might do no AA or FXAA at 4K, the PPI of 4K is basically like running AA. (AA is the solution to not enough PPI)

The AF part is ridiculous. (not to mention FXAA has so little performance hit you'd think they'd want that just so their benches have a type of AA)

So honestly, how well does no aa look to you at 4k? With your ultra dense dpi?

What I have seen is that works very well in some cases but there are still jaggies in other places. Depending on the game, it can be acceptable. But it is not 100%. Aliasing still exist in the 4k I have seen. The situation is improved but not eliminated.
Reply
#20
(08-30-2015, 11:39 PM)ocre Wrote: So honestly, how well does no aa look to you at 4k?  With your ultra dense dpi?

What I have seen is that works very well in some cases but there are still jaggies in other places.  Depending on the game, it can be acceptable.  But it is not 100%.  Aliasing still exist in the 4k I have seen.  The situation is improved but not eliminated.

Haven't been gaming on it TBH.

Mainly game in the winter.
Reply
#21
AMD is clearly desperate at this point. No AF is a joke.
Reply
#22
(08-30-2015, 11:39 PM)ocre Wrote:
(08-28-2015, 05:24 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-28-2015, 06:14 AM)ocre Wrote: Don't you guys know you can't trust review sites.  They are all under nvidia's spell.

AMDs results are all you need, the best in the planet.  They would never lie or mislead......

That is a fact.  

/sarcasm

So AMD isn't sending out review samples?  How cool is that?
There is no way that this thing will run at 1000mhz sustained.  Never ever ever.

Why do you need review samples?!

AMD has shown you clearly that the Nano is much faster than the mini 970 at the settings 99% of gamers use:

4K 0X AA, 0X AF

/sarcasm


I can see why they might do no AA or FXAA at 4K, the PPI of 4K is basically like running AA. (AA is the solution to not enough PPI)

The AF part is ridiculous. (not to mention FXAA has so little performance hit you'd think they'd want that just so their benches have a type of AA)

So honestly, how well does no aa look to you at 4k?  With your ultra dense dpi?

What I have seen is that works very well in some cases but there are still jaggies in other places.  Depending on the game, it can be acceptable.  But it is not 100%.  Aliasing still exist in the 4k I have seen.  The situation is improved but not eliminated.

MUCH improved.  Haven't played much myself - last time was in spring, but I do remember that it literally looked 4 times cleaner/clearer.  It's just like having 4x SSAA with 1080p, but also with 4x the PPI (that downsampled 1080p can only give you).  Like when playing Skyrim, just 2x AA with 4K is pretty much razor sharp to me, if 8x AA is generally considered the max "reasonable" AA level for 1080p.  It's not worth the performance drop to go to 4x AA on 4K, on my aging GTX 780 (which puts the average at around 38fps, I think, rather than around 45).
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#23
(08-31-2015, 10:42 PM)BoFox Wrote: MUCH improved.  Haven't played much myself - last time was in spring, but I do remember that it literally looked 4 times cleaner/clearer.  It's just like having 4x SSAA with 1080p, but also with 4x the PPI (that downsampled 1080p can only give you).  Like when playing Skyrim, just 2x AA with 4K is pretty much razor sharp to me, if 8x AA is generally considered the max "reasonable" AA level for 1080p.  It's not worth the performance drop to go to 4x AA on 4K, on my aging GTX 780 (which puts the average at around 38fps, I think, rather than around 45).

I'll probably just turn on FXAA next time I play and call it a day.

I get that it's not as good as MSAA, but the performance hit is so small you can pretty much use it for every game with a 980Ti I would think.

All of the gaming I've watched my son do on that panel looks amazing to me, and he's liking it a lot. I think the GSync is almost as big of a deal as the 4K.
Reply
#24
Yea, that's the main reason I'm not using 4xAA instead of 2xAA for Skyrim, since the minimum goes down to under 30-35fps in very intense group fights in Skyrim, which makes the otherwise near-flawless fluid Gsync gameplay suffer. Of course, I'm using FXAA as well, along with 2x AA. My 2 older kids love Skyrim, so it's really them playing it, with me watching a bit. When their friends come over to watch it or play a bit themselves, their jaws drop with them saying "Wow!!!!! So sharp and detailed, I can't believe this!!!"
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#25
About the Nano.....  WCCFtech shared this:

Quote:
Quote:Q1- Will the R9 Nano be offered as a reference model only or will AIBs be allowed to offer custom models?
Yes, 3+ months later.
Q2- Can you talk a little about overclocking on the Radeon R9 Nano?
Sort of, because of board power, it may be limited. Targeted at power efficiency. Can overclock, increase power limit, increase clock, but limited by 175W total board power. Wide engine ran at low speed for more efficiency. Up to 1000MHz means it optimizes the frequency based on needs and applications. ~900MHz for gaming. FurMark would likely be lower. 500MHz Memory, can’t modify it officially, won’t be officially supported to be overclocked either.
Q3- In your hot chips 2015 presentation, you showed the Fiji chip has 4 ACE Engines compared to 8 as shown in the previous slides, is it actually 4 ACEs on Fiji?
Q4- Price?
$649
Throttled at 85C. ~75 C at typical loads. 175W board power.
Cooler looks less than it actually is. More efficient and advanced than it looks. Fans mounted into shroud No 3D CAD drawing for Nano. Can’t remove shroud without removing fan, though fan mounts can be made!
Not enough cooling? FAR FROM TRUTH
Dedicated heatpipe for VRM’s. Industry first for OEM. Fins are horizontal. Helps exhaust air out the back of the card and maintain positive air pressure even with an axial solution. Hybrid vapor chamber/heatpipes, Flattened heatpipes on the whole underside of the heatsink. Vapor chamber over ASIC itself.
September 7th availability

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-unleashed-649-fastest-miniitx-card-full-fiji-gpu-4-gb-hbm-performance-faster-gtx-980/#ixzz3kPmEGcim

First, "~900MHz for gaming", but assuming that the card is running cool to begin with, for a 30-second benchmark run, before temps rise to 75C when it starts to throttle... (I'm guessing that it throttles all the way down to maybe 600MHz or so when hitting 85C).  


Then "Not enough cooling?"  FAR FROM TRUTH?!??!???  Perhaps only for the short benchmarks, or 3DMark where there's a cool-down period in between the short tests... 

900MHz will be the absolute max that 175W PCIE supply could ever dream of powering, no matter what the temperature is - unless it's a super simplistic non-demanding game that can run at 1000MHz without using much power. 

AMD's PR BS at its finest!

"~75C at typical loads" stated by the PR, usually translates to maybe "~70C at modern popular game loads", or less.

For that tiny fan to keep the HUGE 599mm^2 chip at less than 70C so that power leakage caused by heat doesn't waste too many watts, would probably mean no more than 700-800MHz for sustained gaming of more than say, 15-20 minutes. It has to be that much slower than the WATERCOOLED Fury X, for anything to make sense.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#26
(08-31-2015, 11:45 PM)BoFox Wrote: For that tiny fan to keep the HUGE 599mm^2 chip at less than 70C so that power leakage caused by heat doesn't waste too many watts, would probably mean no more than 750-800MHz for sustained gaming of more than say, 15-20 minutes.  It has to be that much slower than the WATERCOOLED Fury X, for anything to make sense.

Air cooling "can" be as good as a little AIO watercooler, but not this shrimpy little unit!

AMD can't honestly think people are dumb enough to believe "Gosh! It's an air cooled Fury X!"
Reply
#27
One word: NOISE

actually 2 words: Nano Noise!
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#28
Now AMD won't provide Tech Report with a R9 Nano for review: http://techreport.com/news/28971/wanted-...on-r9-nano
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#29
Apparently the call out worked!!!

"Looks like I'll have a card to test early next week. May not hit the Thursday launch date with a review, but should be too far off of it. Thanks to everyone for their support." - Damage
Reply
#30
Let's see if AMD was really doing this only to try to hide its own tiny pecker that got real cold..
Reply
#31
Now TechPowerUp's saying AMD won't let them have a R9 Nano because "too few review samples for the press": http://www.techpowerup.com/215776/amd-ra...u-not.html
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#32
Yep Kyle at [H] is not getting one either. AMD is really trying to control this launch. They boycott all the press
Reply
#33
http://www.techpowerup.com/215776/amd-ra...6#comments
Quote:Put shortly, AMD isn't distributing these to everyone for a good reason. It isn't bias, because that's demonstrably a crappy premise. It isn't a history with media outlets, because they've stated that samples of these products are in extremely short supply. What we've got is AMD trying to craft a social media PR war against Nvidia. They're choosing outlets that address the technologically ignorant masses, where data doesn't trump cool factor. They're trying to get this product out the door as something that PR sells, well in advance of hard numbers. I honestly believe this is AMD admitting that Fiji isn't a home run. It might be a solid runner on base, but they're not selling Fiji as that, nor are they focused on the future with DX12. AMD is trying to get a PR win because they've got a small form factor and good performance with a new technology. I believe the phrase is "desperation play," and not "victory lap." We love you AMD, but you've really got to see that this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. A $650 card isn't an impulse buy, and trying to sell it on social media frames it as such.

Who is the target demographic AMD? It isn't common people, because a console is cheaper and works from the moment you plug it in. It isn't enthusiasts, who drool over the numbers. It isn't gamers, who a long time ago agreed to large cases to fit the GPUs they needed into them. Heck, it isn't even the HTPC market, because that price tag is just painfully high. AMD is trying to manufacture a new market, and I just can't see it.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#34
Haha, TPU, good one. Even TPU feels offended by not getting a so-called $650 card for free, LOL.

It's a BS excuse as to not having enough samples. If AMD can sell 2000 of these Nano cards, AMD certainly can send 5-10 of them to the biggest reviewers to gain the publicity needed to help the sales, but AMD cannot even do what some of the other AIB's can do with extremely limited production cards (like only 1000 cards produced, like some of the custom Asus Mars II or III - or something else, I can't remember the name), and still send review samples of these.
Reply
#35
http://techreport.com/news/29011/updated...apologizes
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/09/09/am...nano_press
They're angry.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#36
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1875082&page=13
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1875082&page=14
WHOA. Tom's and someone else are rigging the tests?
Quote:A formerly prestigious site that I stopped reading years ago tested the Nano card in a completely open testbed (!) and concluded:
Quote:All of this lets us overlook smaller caveats, such as the R9 Nano’s cheap coils, which make the card sound like cicadas in love. The new graphics card’s fan also isn't our favorite, since it gets obnoxious once a certain temperature is reached.

What’s also annoying is the lack of HDMI 2.0, which makes it impossible for the card to play some 4K content, and effectively limits playback on current Ultra HD TV sets to 30Hz. We’ve weighed all of these caveats in light of the great benchmark results, though, and, in the end, we decided that the award [Editor's Choice 2015] should stand anyway.
The quality and tone of the review is consistent with the reasons I stopped using the site after the original owner, who's famous name it still bears, sold it to some media group.

Quote:
Quote:A formerly prestigious site that I stopped reading years ago tested the Nano card in a completely open testbed (!) and concluded:
Quote:All of this lets us overlook smaller caveats, such as the R9 Nano’s cheap coils, which make the card sound like cicadas in love. The new graphics card’s fan also isn't our favorite, since it gets obnoxious once a certain temperature is reached.

What’s also annoying is the lack of HDMI 2.0, which makes it impossible for the card to play some 4K content, and effectively limits playback on current Ultra HD TV sets to 30Hz. We’ve weighed all of these caveats in light of the great benchmark results, though, and, in the end, we decided that the award [Editor's Choice 2015] should stand anyway.
The quality and tone of the review is consistent with the reasons I stopped using the site after the original owner, who's famous name it still bears, sold it to some media group.
Of course, another site owned by the same media group didn't mention anything other than a brief note about lack of HDMI 2.0, and even said the card was quiet. They don't really give out awards though. They did, however show a power usage chart using Furmark. They were surprised Nano used the least power, while completely glossing over the fact that clock speed was throttled below 700MHz.

Hmm
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#37
wholly crap.

AMD == fail
Reply
#38
AMD's management and PR are both horrible. I feel sorry for their engineers.
Reply
#39
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano/30.html
The worst part is they still gave it an award despite the coil whine and awful price-performance.
[Image: perfrel_1920.gif][Image: perfrel_2560.gif][Image: perfrel_3840.gif]
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#40
It is only awful because of the price.

But i heard AMD only has 300 of these so I guess they will sell.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)