Shame that it has a coil whine issue and costs 699€. I'm predicting terrible sales numbers for this DOA product.. I seriously hope that we will see lower prices with 14nm GPU's in 2016.

man I think you can get two of those little pecker 970's for the same PRICE. ok ok so who is running the show over there at amd again,its that lying bitch lady ain't it. da hell are they thinking it has more things wrong with it for the market they are looking for then you could shake a stick at....damn next titan y $1500 damn I hate that. all the gosh dang bs we heard this pass week oh nv have to do it with software bla bla bla no dvi still no dp 2.2 so on most tv's 30 refresh only? and wth?you can get a 150usd card to be htpc ??????what wait how high was amd when they made fuji? they had some good stuff yo

Costs 799 € here in Finland. Definitely not worth the >2x price compared to mini GTX 970's (Gigabyte) and if you have case where you can put Sapphire Fury Tri-X then that's better buy too (and much cheaper). This is definitely noisier (coil whine issues) and hotter (just little bit) than what I'd like.

Like many other gurus said before me, the Nano is a great card with a terrible price... And for those worried about Nano´s poor sales, don´t be. The Nano isn´t made to sell a lot, it´s simply a halo product to show what AMD can deliver in terms of performance within a very small size and to highlight the power of HBM, basically it´s a marketing product, a very good one if you ask me. Great review as always Hilbert!

I have several thoughts on this product (R9 Nano): 1)- Price doesn't matter. It's a halo product, in the same vein of the Nvidia "Titan" series. This is not meant to be competitive, it's meant to stand in a class of its own. This also allows it to somewhat get away with limited availability. - 2)- Performance is fine. Its competition currently is the 970 ITX, a product it outperforms, period. Sure, price-performance ratio is horrible for the R9 Nano, and its power efficiency is still well below Maxwell 2.0, but it still runs fine for its niche. - 3)- That being said, I can't fathom how they didn't ship this with HDMI 2.0; whether onboard the card or an included dongle. For an ITX card, this is unacceptable when your competition does include it. - 4)- The whole Fury and Nano series has been one big cockup. I can't help but think that the 980 Ti completely destroyed the series before it was released. We see that in the Fury X with its horrible efficiency (on the power-performance curve) needed for the last few MHz in order to somewhat compete with the 980 Ti; so bad in fact that they need a water cooler to keep it in check. - This then put the rest of the lineup in uncomfortable price-performance zones that I do not think they were originally meant to target. Finally, I can't help but think that the Fiji was originally meant to target Steam machines and the like, as well as a love letter to Apple and its small form factors. However, the SteamOS still hasn't taken off, and the power usage, cost and performance hasn't gotten Apple onboard; not to mention the poor yields (perhaps the biggest factor?). Again, you can't market this as an "4K ITX" card and not include HDMI 2.0 for what would be its biggest use case. All in all, I think the Nano is the first "right" card type from AMD in a long time in my opinion, and I think they need to focus on this path more. However, the current Fiji "Fury's" aren't the right result that is needed; let's see what the next generation holds (if there is one...). All that being said, AMD's behavior with reviewers is downright damaging. Sure, they are within their full right to try and cherry pick reviews and reviewers, just don't be surprised when there is backlash and those very reviews become scrutinized. Anandtech accepting the Nvidia 970 ITX from AMD is downright unacceptable, I doubt they check first to make sure the BIOS was untampered with, etc. They should have contacted ASUS directly and asked them for their 970 ITX.

had a quick look on OcUK, you can buy these 980ti for £499 Palit Super Jetstream KFA2 Infin8 Black Edition Inno3D Herculez OC The cheapest Nano on OcUK is £529. They then go up to £549, £575 and £599. Cheapest FuryX is £549. It's kinda strange that nVidia have the fastest high end gpu in that £500 bracket, while it's also the cheapest.

980ti is a no brainer at that price considering it faster.

No wonder AMD spun off its gpu division. May be releasing this first iteration of the Nano card is a feeler to see how the market responds. Price is almost as much as the GTX 980 Ti but does not perform close to it whatsoever.

Idk, I don't see how they could charge less. For the Nano, maybe -- if they went with a different chip they could have done it. But for the Fury X? The actual size of the card is as big as the 980Ti, it has a water cooling loop and HBM yields/the R&D cost of that alone.. I doubt AMD is making much money on the Fury X to begin with, at least no where near as much as Nvidia makes on the 980Ti. So then what would be the solution? Ditch HBM? If they had gone with GDDR5, the card would be 40w higher and perform slightly worse than it already does. Maybe they could have sold it for $550 at that rate or something -- but they'd still have a card that costs as much as Nvidia's (manufacturing wise) and they'd be selling it for less. I think AMD is doing the best it can with what it has available. HBM is good for it's APU/HSA and it also has the added benefit of allowing creative/unique form factors for GPU's while cutting power a bit. I can't really see them going any other direction aside from somehow building a new architecture quicker. While GCN has aged nicely (mostly because of AMD's efforts with Mantle/Xbox One) it's definitely showing it's age when it comes to performance/power scaling. I mean look at this card, the difference between 175w and 280w is a few hundred mhz. Hopefully Greenland or w/e the codename for the new architecture is called fixes some of these issues, comes on 14nm with HBM2. Nvidia will probably only have 16nm available through TSMC, so they'll be at a slight disadvantage when it comes to density.

Well as you say, if we accept that the Fury X is expensive and has a low profit margin because of the low yields of the Fiji XT coupled with the watercooler, then how can the price of the Nano be justified as it uses the same GPU without the expense of the cooler, yet costs the same? Having two halo cards using the same GPU is fine, but not when you don't even have the yields to support one product! Had the Nano used the Fiji Pro then I don't see why it couldn't have just as healthy a profit margin (maybe even better than with the XT) but at a lower price for the consumer, Fury X production would not be affected and maybe even a lower price could have been offset by the lower costs of the Nano. Either way, I imagine there could have been some movement with the Fury X pricing and it only costs that much because that's what Nvidia have done. Rather than being all about the profit margin maybe more effort should be spent on regaining market share as brand loyalty shouldn't be under-estimated. If you've got no loyal customers then you're already at a disadvantage when the next generation products get released.

All in all, I think the Nano is the first "right" card type from AMD in a long time in my opinion

Agreed. Wholeheartedly! It's really great that AMD is addressing whole 0.005% of the market :3eyes: Like eXtreme™ gamers who are squatting in 2x2m rooms and don't have enough space for ATX case. Anyone out there in the real world who's into cool and quiet gaming and has to have AMD/HBM, you are far better off getting Fury X and setting -50% Power Limit

No wonder AMD spun off its gpu division. May be releasing this first iteration of the Nano card is a feeler to see how the market responds. Price is almost as much as the GTX 980 Ti but does not perform close to it whatsoever.

Thing is, just checked Newegg. The Nano isn't cheaper. The cheapest one costs as much as a 980ti.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly! It's really great that AMD is addressing whole 0.005% of the market :3eyes: Like eXtreme™ gamers who are squatting in 2x2m rooms and don't have enough space for ATX case. Anyone out there in the real world who's into cool and quiet gaming and has to have AMD/HBM, you are far better off getting Fury X and setting -50% Power Limit

Your ignoring OEM's. Face it, computers are getting smaller and smaller. The old fashioned large ATX desktop monsters are going the way of the dodo. Fury series seems to have been an attempt to answer this change, but the engineering/technical part wasn't able to get it right this generation.

I feel that this is a missed opportunity for AMD, I know a lot of people that would love to set up a powerful yet small form factor ITX/HTPC build in their living rooms. The ridiculous cost and then the need for a potentially expensive active display port adapter on top? Not a chance.

The old fashioned large ATX desktop monsters are going the way of the dodo.

I dunno, for hardcore custom builders, ATX is still a big thing IMO I prefer having a nice big case than a small form factor, I like my machines to look the part, and have a good amount of airflow room, than a little tiny hot thing Even if I managed to get the whole thing watercooled, I'd still stick to full ATX Personal preference I suppose

Your ignoring OEM's. Face it, computers are getting smaller and smaller. The old fashioned large ATX desktop monsters are going the way of the dodo. Fury series seems to have been an attempt to answer this change, but the engineering/technical part wasn't able to get it right this generation.

And again I agree with you Its just that until we get there, they should be addressing hugely prevalent present form factors. its like with HBM... AMD is taking the trip into future, while leaving the house on fire

^but it does showcase some nifty features,as a prelude to what they can do the card is fine. as a (w)hole not so much

Not bad numbers for a mITX card. But the price is not right. I can get a standard Fury or a 980 for a cheaper price. Looks like I am holding on to my R9 290 for a good while to come. Plus in some cases it equals a 980 or just surpasses it depending on the game.

Nice and not a bad little card but here in the UK it costs the same as an AMP ED GTX 980 TI from Zotac which lets face it has crazy OC head room and overall better performance so makes it a bit of a no brainer (currently GTX 980TI's can be had for even less). If you do however have a crazy micro build this is the best I guess for custom builders. I can't help but think the price is doing more harm than good. Say if this was £400/£450 it would be a fantastic choice but at the same price as a faster card from the competition it's limiting itself to some very particular enthusiasts. I'll be honest though and say if i was making a tiny itx build I'd grab one certainly as it is a good card but that price....dam.

Awesom review Hilbert! 🙂 This card's waaay out of my price range tho. I guess yields (and cost of production) need to drastically go down before there's a ~$300 4GB HBM GPU.

Yikes why is it the same price as a fury x with the standard water cooler?, they should of passed the saving on to the consumer with that 99 cent cooler on the nano.

It;s a nice product, but no HDMI 2.0 kind of shoots itself in the foot imo. I'm curious what a pair of these on water cooling could do, but not at the current price. So the only "sensible" spot for Nano at $650 (or more) is an HTPC, but without HDMI 2.0 or TVs with display Port it's pointless. 🙁