The AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review: The Power of Size
by Ryan Smith on September 10, 2015 8:00 AM ESTOverclocking
Finally, no review of a high-end video card would be complete without a look at overclocking performance.
Of all of the Fiji cards overclocking the R9 Nano is perhaps the easiest and certainly the most unusual. Due to the fact that the card is essentially a 1000MHz Fiji card with a heavy power throttle, the card is already validated for clockspeeds that under load it doesn’t have the available power to reach. As a result while one can crank up the clockspeeds, the card isn’t going to move until you increase the power limit. And even then you are more likely to hit the power cap again than you are to break 1000MHz sustained. So overclocking the GPU is something of an academic affair.
| Radeon R9 Fury/Nano Series Overclocking | |||||
| Ref. R9 Fury X | ASUS R9 Fury | Ref. R9 Nano | |||
| Boost Clock | 1125MHz | 1075MHz | 1075MHz | ||
| Memory Clock | 1Gbps (500MHz DDR) | 1.1Gbps (550MHz DDR) | 1.1Gbps (550MHz DDR) | ||
| Power Limit | 100% | 115% | 135% | ||
| Max Voltage | 1.212v | 1.169v | 1.2v | ||
Overall we were able to overclock our sample to 1075MHz on the GPU and 550MHz (1.1Gbps) on the memory. However load clockspeeds were almost always under 1000MHz even with a generous 35% increase in the power target. Overdrive does allow for a larger increase – up to 50% – but with the R9 Nano featuring a less robust power delivery system designed to push less power than R9 Fury or R9 Fury X, we’re hesitant to increase the limit further without a better idea of what the card can safely sustain for extended periods of time.
The overall performance gains from overclocking aren’t huge, but at 7-10% they also aren’t too shabby. However since higher clockspeeds quickly ramp up the power requirements due to the higher voltages required, the performance gains won’t be anywhere near the 35% increase in the power limit, despite that we are in fact still power limited.
Meanwhile the 35% increase in the power limit has a definite knock-on effect on the cooling system. The R9 Nano’s cooler is able to keep up with the additional load, holding temperatures to 74C, but noise levels are now over 51dB(A). Power consumption at the wall is similarly affected, with the R9 Nano essentially giving up all of its energy efficiency gains in the process.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
284 Comments
View All Comments
zodiacfml - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
Yawnn.. It's not bad till you get to the price. Fury X now has better value as you get watercooling.paravorheim - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
"Meanwhile Fury X’s massive power headroom has been significantly curtailed, from a TBP of 275W (and in practice a cap much higher than that) to a much harder TBP limit of 175W for the R9 Nano."You say TBP here, is that supposed to be "TDP"? I saw it in a few other places as well.
SunnyNW - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link
TBP (Thermal Board Power) vs TDP (Thermal Design Power)The0ne - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link
Bin parts for power and cooling efficiency instead of a good design isn't something to rave about. It should be something to write off of because, lets faced it, nothing is different from the previous designs.medi03 - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link
Yeah, "previous designs". Like 290x that beat that day Titan at a fraction of price.Gnomer87 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link
While an improvement in the efficiency segment, this card still loses out to Nvidias alternatives, most notably the older 980. The 980 performs only marginally worse, while having a smaller price tag.It's still a walkover, if I were to replace my hd 7950b today, it'd still be nvidia. This is a problem, if AMD doesn't get their shit together, they're going bankrupt.
And that means monopoly.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link
Is there a 980 in this form factor? If not, then it doesn't lose because there is an AMD card that outperforms the 980 for less money as far as I know.IlllI - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link
love the nano, can't justify the price. up until now i thought it was going to be $499. the Fury X i can justify the price b/c you can look at it as having a $100 liquid cooler included. but for the nano to be the same price as the Fury X.. I just can't.gw74 - Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - link
AMD_Roy twitter account has been deleted!JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 22, 2015 - link
Wow, lots of crap in the comment's section. I'll post my own. Smaller is better. The trend of hotter, louder, heavier, and more energy guzzling cards was terrible. Not only did it KILL some of my PCI-E slots after awhile from the sheer weight of the card, but most of the old hot running cards are now dead and don't work. It's nice to see a nano card that can fit in an ITX case comfortably. Here's to LAN parties of the future, and more room on/under desks!