1. Features
AMD launched the Radeon R9 Fury X graphics card back in June this year, which X uses a scaled-up GCN architecture and HBM memory for increased bandwidth and potential to build smaller cards, such as the R9 Nano we are taking a look at today. Looking at the specs of the Nano R9 card you can realize that it uses the full complement of Fiji cores available to the Fury X card. Not only does the R9 Nano feature a full-fat Fiji XT die, the core frequency, quoted as up to 1,000MHz is impressive for a 175W TDP.
| |
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X |
AMD Radeon R9 Fury |
AMD Radeon R9 Nano |
| Stream Processors |
4096 |
3584 |
4096 |
| Texture Units |
256 |
224 |
256 |
| ROPs |
64 |
64 |
64 |
| Boost Clock |
1050MHz |
1000MHz |
1000MHz |
| Memory Clock |
1Gbps HBM |
1Gbps HBM |
1Gbps HBM |
| Memory Bus Width |
4096-bit |
4096-bit |
4096-bit |
| VRAM |
4GB |
4GB |
4GB |
| FP64 |
1/16 |
1/16 |
1/16 |
| TrueAudio |
Y |
Y |
Y |
| Transistor Count |
8.9B |
8.9B |
8.9B |
| Typical Board Power |
275W |
275W |
175W |
| Manufacturing Process |
TSMC 28nm |
TSMC 28nm |
TSMC 28nm |
| GPU |
Fiji |
Fiji |
Fiji |
| Price |
$649 |
$549 |
$649 |
The Radeon R9 Nano is in fact very close to the potential of the Fury X card; the only meaningful difference, from a performance point of view, appears to be a slightly reduced core speed.
But besides the performance potential, the advantage of the R9 Nano is its size, which allows it to easily fit into Mini ITX systems. AMD advertises the R9 Nano as a high-performing graaphics card for gamers who want a small-form-factor system. On paper it's also a good candidate for a deluxe Steam Box for the living room, though it lacks HDMI 2.0 so you may not be able to play games on your new 4K TV.
2. Benchmarks
Lest's run some benchnarks on this new baby. The becnhmark PC configuration is the following:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K
- Motherboard: ASUS Z170-A
- Memory: DDR4-2133 8GB × 2 (15-15-15-35,1.20V)
- Storage: 256GB SSD (CFD S6TNHG6Q)
- Graphics driver: AMD Catalyst 15.8 Beta (15.201.1151) / GeForce 355.82
- OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit
- Applications: 3DMark, 3DMark11, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Final Fantasy XIV: Blue Sky of Ishugarudo, MHF benchmark
In the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark, the Radeon R9 Nano scored higher by 26% compared to the GeForce GTX 970, although that score was about 13% lower than the Radeon R9 Fury X.
Pushing the resolution to 4K resultred to a greater score difference between the R9 nano and the GeForce GTX 970 (32%). Agaimn the high-end Radeon R9 Fury X took the lead.
At the Sky Diver and Cloud Gate becnhmarks, the differences among the total scores of teh cards were smaller. The Radeon R9 Nano scored bettwe than the GeForce GTX 970 by 10 ~ 17% (graphics score).
In the 3DMark11 Extreme benchmark, the score differences among each GPU in the test were almost teh half of what we saw in the Sky Diver and Fire Strike benchmarks.
The Witcher 3 becnhmark unveiled a significant frame rate difference between the GeForce GTX 970 and R9 Nano, mainly at 4K.
In the MHF benchmark, the Radeon R9 Nano was about 10% faster than the GeForce GTX 970 in the full HD test, with the difference to be further widened at about 30% in 4K at about 30 percent.
3. Final words
Despite the small amount of benchmarks, it looks like AMD deserves some serious props for even creating the Radeon R9 Nano.
This pint-sized powerhouse is based on revolutionarily tiny - and fast - high-bandwidth memory to deliver flagship-level performance in a form factor that fits where most other graphics cards simply can’t.
The card games ran like a champ, while it stays cool and relatively quiet. AMD said the Nano would outpunch the older Radeon 290X flagship while using drastically less power, and it seems that the company was right.
It also outperforms the GeForce GTX 970, the most powerful mITX graphics card in Nvidia’s arsenal.
On the other hand, pushing the PC ecosystem forward isn’t possible without some growing pains. The $650 Radeon Nano rocks, but its price will shock most of you so it won’t appeal to everybody.