The AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review: The Power of Size
by Ryan Smith on September 10, 2015 8:00 AM ESTGrand Theft Auto V
The latest edition of Rockstar’s venerable series of open world action games, Grand Theft Auto V was originally released to the last-gen consoles back in 2013. However thanks to a rather significant facelift for the current-gen consoles and PCs, along with the ability to greatly turn up rendering distances and add other features like MSAA and more realistic shadows, the end result is a game that is still among the most stressful of our benchmarks when all of its features are turned up. Furthermore, in a move rather uncharacteristic of most open world action games, Grand Theft Auto also includes a very comprehensive benchmark mode, giving us a great chance to look into the performance of an open world action game.
On a quick note about settings, as Grand Theft Auto V doesn't have pre-defined settings tiers, I want to quickly note what settings we're using. For "Very High" quality we have all of the primary graphics settings turned up to their highest setting, with the exception of grass, which is at its own very high setting. Meanwhile 4x MSAA is enabled for direct views and reflections. This setting also involves turning on some of the advanced redering features - the game's long shadows, high resolution shadows, and high definition flight streaming - but not increasing the view distance any further.
Otherwise for "High" quality we take the same basic settings but turn off all MSAA, which significantly reduces the GPU rendering and VRAM requirements.
Closing things out with one of our most strenuous games, we have a mixed bag for the R9 Nano. Performance relative to the R9 Fury X and R9 Fury is ending on a high note, with the R9 Nano trailing the other Fiji cards by around 10% and 4% respectively. The R9 Nano continues to impress in its ability to deliver performance so close to the R9 Fury, and games like GTA V are prime examples of this.
The catch for AMD here is that on an absolute basis, GTA really forces you to either compromise on quality or resolution if you want to hit 60fps. In this case we’d need to drop all the way to 1920x1080 for 60fps on the Nano, and this eats away at AMD’s intrinsic advantage over NVIDIA where AMD’s performance drops off more slowly with higher resolutions. As a result the power-similar GTX 980 is close in performance to the R9 Nano at 2560x1440 and takes a small lead at 1920x1080.
Otherwise AMD at least looks solid on a size-wise comparison. The R9 Nano holds a comfortable lead over the GTX 970 Mini, ranging from 12% at 1920x1080 up to 31% at 3840x2160 high quality.
99th percentile framerates however are simply not in AMD’s favor here. Despite the fact that the GTX 980 only has 4GB of VRAM as well, the R9 Nano simply can’t catch up to the GTX 980.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
284 Comments
View All Comments
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
And as someone who has been a long time TR reader and has met him multiple times, I am in complete disagreement with you. His testing is some of the most detailed and accurate that I know.I have little faith in your ability to determine someone's subliminal gifts.
Kutark - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
Unfortunately a great many people are incapable of projecting their own biases onto someone else. Tomshardware and Anandtech have been accused of being pro one team or the other for years.I remember an article i read a few years back, i wish i could remember the guys name, but he was chief editor for one of the macintosh magazines, and he was talking about how he got so fed up with users because if he said literally anything negative about the product he would get his email inbox blown up with accusations of being a MS nutswinger, and fellating Bill Gates, and various other things. He gave an example of one of the ipods which he gave like a 90%+ review, and the ONLY negative things he said was that the casing was shiny, so it took fingerprints really well and was hard to keep looking clean, and that he wished the battery life was a little bit longer. He said he got the most vitriolic and ridiculous emails he'd ever seen.
The problem is people want confirmation that they made the right choice, and if they don't get that, then rather than admit that they made a mistake, they would rather attack the reviewer as being a fanboy or something equally hideous.
medi03 - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
In Fermi times Anand found it "appropriate" to compare cherry picked OCed nVidia card vs stock AMD."Subtle bias" my ass.
Ryan Smith - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
It's something we've apologized for, repeatedly. It was a poor idea and we readily admit as much.http://www.anandtech.com/show/3988/the-use-of-evga...
mapesdhs - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link
I never saw the need to apologise; the price of the FTW meant it was the far better choice to buy back then (I bought two for SLI).fuicharles - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
I used to go to The Tech Reports to read the Top News contents everyday. Their Top News was always updated and shared lots of recent development.However, recently something fishy, Tech Reports doesn't share any news on the recent Gamesworks and Asyn Compute tragedy in their sites.
And try to pin point the Pump Whine problem even after AMD has already come up new revision of Fury Card which solve the problems.
I don't want to believe Scott Wasson is biased either, but isn't that as a journalist you should share the bad/good for both camp to let the readers judge themselves
milli - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
'most detailed and accurate' ≠ unbiasedDon't worry that you didn't notice the hidden bias. It took me a while to realize it. After reading TR for a couple years, around 2006 I started noticing the bias. It's not what he says that's biased but what he doesn't say/report that makes him biased. He's smart.
Well he's getting better at hiding his bias these last years. In the previous decade he would often pit OC'd nVidia cards with stock AMD cards in his 'reviews'.
Just like many knew that Anand was biased towards Apple with his ridiculously positive reviews until the final proof came when he went to actually work for them.
slickr - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
He has been shilling for Nvidia for good several years now, everything Nvidia does = great, amazing, unique, always winning in some ultra specific aspect even if realistically the card is garbage, when he talks about AMD = power consumption is 10W or 20W more than Nvidia, Nvidia clear winner, price and performance don't matter, only those 10W difference matters.No way for AMD to win, I would have not sent review copies to a whole more websites, there are at least 4-5 of top of my head that are Nvidia shill town and they not even doing it subtly.
althaz - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link
nVidia have had a lead in performance for half a decade or more now - it's not tech reviewers fault that AMD are using more power to deliver worse performance at similar prices.chrnochime - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
And we're suppose to have faith in YOUR view of SW? LOL