The AMD Radeon R9 Nano Review: The Power of Size
by Ryan Smith on September 10, 2015 8:00 AM ESTSynthetics
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.
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
284 Comments
View All Comments
gw74 - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
Everything you say here is refuted by my previous comment.slickr - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
LOL. Either you are one of the biggest dumbasses out there or a shill yourself. To believe it was a "honest mistake" is like believing the earth is made out of cheese.They had at least 2 months to fix it and to rectify it, did they not read any of the hundred of reviews? They tried to cover it up and it was only when average CONSUMERS started noticing it and testing it that it was found out it had been a major fraud.
gw74 - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
insulting me, setting up a false dichotomy and a false analogy will not help you.They did not realise there had been an error during those 2 months, and none of the reviews mentioned it, because it does not noticeably affect performance except in certain SLI / 4K low framerate edge cases. It was only when until users starting reporting it in mid Jan. They had meetings between marketing and engineering then released a statement to PCPer on 24th Jan.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link
Nvidia continued to lie to the public on its website by stating that the 970 has 224 GB/s, long after Anandtech's Correcting the Specs article was published — which made it clear enough that the card can't reach that number. Quit shilling.Alexvrb - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
Err, uh, the engineers only communicate in binary! The translator was sick that week! Locusts! It wasn't their fault!!Reality: "Well technically it has 4GB on there so we'll just... leave that detail out... they won't notice for months anyway. Then we'll apologize and a bunch of fanboys will defend us till the bitter end anyway."
If AMD had pulled a stunt like that they would have been raked through the coals till there were only ashes.
gw74 - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
no. that is not "reality". That is speculation.bigboxes - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
Utter nonsense. Nvidia knew damn well that they had a technical and marketing issue and lied through their teeth. Misleading reviewers, customers and the general tech community. It eventually came out and they went into full damage control. And before you say it, I bought an MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G card after all this went down. I'm happy with this card, but it is what it is.gw74 - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
you forgot to include evidence of them lying, or a reason for why they would lie.Oxford Guy - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
It's called reality, dude.gw74 - Friday, September 11, 2015 - link
meaningless