Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. Since R9 Nano is a fully enabled (albeit lower clocked) Fiji part, synthetic performance behaviors should be very close to R9 Fury X after accounting for the clockspeed differences.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

Since the R9 Fury still features a fully enabled geometry frontend, this test is all about clockspeeds. And that means the R9 Nano takes a fairly typical dive here, trailing the R9 Fury X by a bit over 10%, while trailing the R9 Fury by a bit more than we see in games.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Texel Fill

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill

Somewhat surprisingly, the R9 Nano doesn’t do better than what we see here for the texel fillrate test. It still needs to make up for a lack of clockspeed, but it does have more texture units than the R9 Fury since it’s a fully enabled GPU. On the other hand pixel throughput is a bit better than what we were expecting; R9 Nano doesn’t seem too inconvenienced by its clockspeed disadvantage.

Grand Theft Auto V Compute
Comments Locked

284 Comments

View All Comments

  • jay401 - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link

    The only thing wrong with the Nano and the rest of the Fury lineup is the price. They should all have debuted $50 cheaper than they did.
  • theNiZer - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    My thoughts exactly :)
  • HisDivineOrder - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    Nice to see that Anandtech didn't mind getting their card with whatever promises they had to make to get it. I'm reminded of the AMD Red section that this site once had and I begin to wonder if that payment scheme ever really ended or just went "underground?"
  • garbagedisposal - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    Jesus Christ, you are one especially rabid and unpleasant person. Please don't comment on this website.
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    If you think this site is pro-AMD you clearly don't read the reviews, like the review of Broadwell that included like 8 slow APUs and not a single FX chip at a reasonable clockspeed (like 4.5 GHz), even though FX, not APUs, offers the best desktop performance from AMD.
  • Creig - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    Looks like we have a new generation of Wounded [H] Children on our hands.
  • Will Robinson - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    Seeing that Tech Report's Graphics forum used to be sponsored by Nvidia....I guess it went to the same place hmm?
  • eanazag - Tuesday, September 22, 2015 - link

    I want one, but not at that price. They need a version of the nano at $300-50 that smacks the 970 mini from cheek to cheek. Though with the whole Fiji series I am disappointed it maxes out at 4 GB of VRAM.

    Anyhow, I would be interested in the best performance a vendor could offer in a single slot cooler. Not the usual duds that come with a single slot cooler. Ooorrrrr okay performance with a water cooler, when I say okay performance I'm thinking what usually comes in at the $180+-$225 price range.
  • colonelclaw - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    As someone who is currently heavily invested in Nvidia tech, I would just like to say well done to AMD, this a great (little) product!
    980 nano please :)
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link

    Probably not a 980 Nano, but a 1080 Nano is more likely. This is the future of GPUs. Next year we get FinFET and HBM2 from NVIDIA and ATI. It's only a matter of time before both AMD and NVIDIA have full lineups of SFF GPUs. Why pay more for all that PCB space if you don't need it?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now