Exceptional Efficiency, Passable 4K Operation

So there you lot have it, the Radeon R9 Nano is slightly slower than the Fury, which is slightly slower than the Fury X. The Nano is on average 6% slower than the Fury at both 1600p and 4K, which is nigh what we were expecting. Compared to the 390X, the Nano remains 10% faster at 1600p and 12% faster at 4K, though the important thing to note here is that it consumed on average 27% less ability, which is pretty incredible.

Adjacent to Nvidia's offerings, the Nano was just 6% faster than the GTX 980 at 1600p, but had a more comfortable 13% lead at 4K, while consuming 12% more than power. In terms of efficiency the GTX 980 and Nano are about par and the GeForce is very competitive because it can be had for less than $500 these days.

Forgetting about the Nano's tiny size and focusing squarely on price and performance, it'due south the $650 GTX 980 Ti that we're interested in. This comparison sees the Nano trail the GTX 980 Ti by a 13% margin at 1600p and 10% at 4K, though the Nano consumed 16% less power on average, so information technology looks to exist the more efficient graphics bill of fare.

The $650 Fury X is already a hard sell due to cannibalization, with the $550 Fury coming in but a few frames slower, so we're non sure where another $650 card fits into AMD's lineup. Nosotros retrieve a $550 Republic of the fiji islands Pro Nano would've been a much ameliorate proffer although the form factor is unique and they desire you to pay for it.

Then assuming yous see value in the Fury 10, you lot at present accept the choice of that card or a smaller air-cooled version that'due south not every bit fast. Go along in listen that the Fury X and its radiator volition fit happily in almost all the great Mini-ITX gaming cases, such equally the Silverstone Sugo SG13, Corsair 250D and In Win 901 for example, so the Nano isn't exactly necessary for a powerful mini PC.

The Fury X should also fit in the Lian Li PC-Q33 and possibly fifty-fifty the Cooler Master Elite 110 that AMD photographed the Nano in, so we take to wonder how many scenarios there are where the Nano is going to be required/preferred over the faster Fury X.

AMD is pushing the Nano every bit a meaty graphics card capable of delivering 4K gaming to Mini-ITX systems only if you're the kind of gamer who demands an average of 60fps, and so the Nano isn't going to meet this requirement. Of the 16 games nosotros tested, the Nano averaged 35fps at 4K and that result was cushioned past relatively loftier frames in older games such as BioShock Infinite and Hitman: Absolution.

That being the case, we can't imagine many enthusiasts will take 'but playable' operation at 4K. Keeping in mind that the lowest level of anti-aliasing was applied and anisotropic filtering 16x is essential in our opinion.

AMD is pushing the Nano every bit a compact graphics card capable of delivering 4K gaming to Mini-ITX systems only if you're the kind of gamer who demands an average of 60fps, then the Nano isn't going to meet this requirement.

And then far the best solution has been to invest in a pair of high-end GPUs, ideally goose egg slower than the R9 290X or GTX 970 for a polish 4K gaming feel. The R9 295X2, which is essentially two 290X GPUs, averaged a more acceptable 51fps.

It'southward worth noting that AMD's Nano reference sample generated a serious amount of coil noise. People complained nigh the Fury 10 curlicue noise simply for us it wasn't that bad. The Nano really screams, however.

Given how the Nano is designed nosotros never expected anything fruitful to come from overclocking and with expectations in check we weren't disappointed to find that boosting the clock speed yielded no actress functioning, in fact it made the Nano slower in most cases.

Conversely, raising the power limit provided some positive results without any real negative touch on. Increasing the power limit by 50% allowed the Nano to hold a clock speed of 1000MHz in well-nigh of the games nosotros played and every bit a result boosted performance to Fury Ten like levels.

Temperatures only increased by a few degrees as the fan speed jumped from around 2000 RPM to a abiding 2700 RPM. Naturally, the Nano was generating more than noise and was clearly audible, but information technology was far from what I would call loud.

With a more aggressive power profile the Nano matched the Fury X in The Witcher iii: Wild Chase and Dragon Age: Inquisition, while information technology was merely a single frame slower in Metro: Redux and Battleground 4 -- impressive stuff.

This opens the door for some interesting board partner designs that could possibly come across the Nano achieve Fury X levels of performance if the cooling is up to the task and the power limit is increased.

To sum up my thoughts, the R9 Nano delivers exceptional efficiency and passable 4K performance in an amazingly compact carte du jour that however seems overpriced.

Pros: Measuring a mere 6" long, the R9 Nano brings 4K gaming performance to cases where the Fury 10 tin't fit and it exceeds the GTX 980 Ti in efficiency.

Cons: For the aforementioned $650, the GTX 980 Ti and R9 Fury Ten are a bit faster. Gyre noise is an issue on our sample and on high the fan isn't particularly serenity either. It is 2022 where is the HDMI ii.0 support?