The AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review: The Power of Size
by Ryan Smith on September 10, 2015 8:00 AM ESTThe Competition
One of the issues in testing an unusual card like the R9 Nano is figuring out what to test it against. By and large most of the video cards we receive are, well, large, which is suitable for evaluating high performance cards, but presents a bit more of a problem when looking for something to compare the R9 Nano to.
Anticipating this problem, AMD offered to send us a competitive NVIDIA card as well, ASUS’s GeForce GTX 970 DirectCU Mini. As a matter of policy we typically don’t accept rival cards from a vendor in this fashion in order to avoid testing pre-arranged (and contrived) scenarios. However in this case we had already been looking into NVIDIA Mini-ITX cards for this review and had previously settled on trying to get one of the GTX 970 minis, so we opted to break from standard policy and accept the card. As a result we want to be transparent about accepting an NVIDIA card from AMD.
Left: AMD Radeon R9 Nano. Right: ASUS GeForce GTX 970 DirectCU Mini
The Test
Meanwhile after some early experimentation on how to best evaluate the R9 Nano, we have opted to break from tradition a little bit here as well and test the card in two rigs. For our published numbers and for the purposes of apples-to-apples comparisons we are using our standard AnandTech GPU Testbed, a full-tower ATX system.
However in order to also test the R9 Nano in cozier conditions more fitting of its small size, we have also run a limited selection of cards within a second testbed as a control. Unfortunately we don’t have any true Mini-ITX systems around that are suitable for testing the R9 Nano, but for the next best thing we have turned to our frame capture workstation. Based on a Silverstone Sugo SG09 microATX case, this rig is built around a Core i7-3770 and typically houses our frame capture hardware for frame time analysis. For our testing we have pulled this out and set it up with some of our video cards in order to ensure that these cards operate similarly in cramped conditions.
The AnandTech microATX Video Capture Workstation w/R9 Nano
By and large the microATX case simply confirmed our results on our regular testbed after accounting for CPU differences, satisfying that testing in our larger regular testbed wasn’t unfairly impacting any of our major cards. However we’ll revisit the microATX case for our look at power, temperature, and noise.
| CPU: | Intel Core i7-4960X @ 4.2GHz |
| Motherboard: | ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional |
| Power Supply: | Corsair AX1200i |
| Hard Disk: | Samsung SSD 840 EVO (750GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill RipjawZ DDR3-1866 4 x 8GB (9-10-9-26) |
| Case: | NZXT Phantom 630 Windowed Edition |
| Monitor: | Asus PQ321 |
| Video Cards: | AMD Radeon R9 Fury X ASUS STRIX R9 Fury AMD Radeon R9 Nano Club3D R9 390X 8GB royalQueen OC (Underclocked to 1050MHz) AMD Radeon R9 290X AMD Radeon R9 285 AMD Radeon HD 7970 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 ASUS GeForce GTX 970 DirectCU Mini NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Release 355.82 AMD Catalyst Cat 15.201.1102 |
| OS: | Windows 8.1 Pro |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
284 Comments
View All Comments
palindrome - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
Such a double standard... If that is the case why does the Titan exist? The same can be said with ANY halo card. Being top of the market is going to cost more for consumers. It has ALWAYS been this way. Don't sit there and pretend that Nvidia wouldn't have done the exact same thing, if not worse, when it comes to pricing this product.Kjella - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
Having the absolutely fastest card possible for the performance freaks is quite different from having the fastest card in a niche that clearly values other attributes over maximum performance. Best battery life in a laptop is valuable. Best battery life in a gaming laptop, not so much. Or if you prefer car analogies, best compact car for pulling a trailer.palindrome - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
Your analogy is terrible. A better analogy would be comparing cars that are built for handling and all around performance like the M3 or WRX STI vs big HP cars like the Camaro, Mustang, or Challenger.Peichen - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
You can just get the GTX970 and overclock to make up the 20% difference. GTX970 easily go to 1450Mhz boosted from stock 1178MHz boosted.palindrome - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
The 970 mini cards don't have the same overclocking potential as the standard ones. Also, the HSF setup on those mini cards sound like a miniature leaf blower when you overclock them. The "efficiency" also goes out the window.Also, overclocking doesn't do much to improve 4K performance on those.
nikaldro - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
It's not like this card is good for 4K eitherpalindrome - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
It is fine if you don't just max all the settings. Anyone who ACTUALLY games at 4K knows that max settings on every game is a pipe dream at this point in time.TallestJon96 - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
It's an interesting product, but is just short of being great.If it was $500 it would be great.
If it came out 6 months ago, it would be great.
If it was built on 20nm, and had corresponding power reductions, it would be great.
If it performed 10% better, it would be great.
But it's not, it's just ok. As of right now, 99% of people would be better suited with either a 970, or 980 ti.
lmcd - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
It's a great product for its niche target. At this point neither company will likely release a "great" product because they want their money's worth.SeanJ76 - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
What a joke!! 650$ and it doesn't even beat the 500$ 980GTX!!