WHAT IS THE AMD RADEON R9 Fury NANO?
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Nano is a standout amongst the most energizing Graphic cards I've seen for a considerable length of time and, at just 6in long, it's likewise one of the littlest. In any case, the Nano's minor size doesn't mean it's underpowered – it utilizes the same center as the creature AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.
Packing an intense center inside a small undercarriage isn't simple or modest. I'm captivated to perceive how the Anger Nano stacks up against customary top of the line cards, and on the off chance that it can be justified regardless of its £600 cost.
AMD RADEON R9 Fury Nano – In the engine
The Fury Nano is AMD's first endeavor at putting such an effective center inside a little bundle. It appears an odd move, yet when you consider what's at present going ahead in the PC market, it bodes well.
In the course of recent years, design centers and different parts have seen a support in effectiveness. So while this has prompted enhanced execution, power utilization and warmth yield levels have leveled, or started to decay.
Such patterns have significantly affected illustrations cards and the more extensive PC market. In the representation circle, it's given organizations, for example, AMD the chance to explore different avenues regarding littler and more creative plans, since there's less requirement for leader cards to highlight enormous heatsinks and a large number of fans. In the realm of PCs, smaller than usual ITX and miniaturized scale ATX frameworks are turning out to be more famous choices for top of the line rigs.
AMD has paid some dues keeping in mind the end goal to construct this card. For one thing, it's picked Fiji centers that devour just the most reduced rates of force, and this form of Fiji is joined by four VRM stages instead of the six incorporated into the Anger X – a choice taken to deal with Fiji's elevated force prerequisites.
The core still uses 4,096 stream processors and 8.9 billion transistors, however it's been reduced to around 900MHz – 150MHz lower than the Fury X. The diminishments in clock and VRM, and AMD's decision of force productive Fiji centers, implies that the Fury Nano has a force farthest point of 175W. That is critical to delivering such a little card, since it's 100W not exactly the Fury X.
The majority of AMD's Anger marked cards convey High Transfer speed Memory, as opposed to the more normal GDDR5. The HBM chips have a far more extensive interface than GDDR5, which means more information can be handled in spite of the chips running at far lower speeds. On paper the 500MHz for memory is poor, however the 4,096-piece interface is eight times as wide as past leads. The Fury Nano has 4GB of memory, which is half as much as Nvidia's cards oversee – yet those chips use more established GDDR5.
The Nano is chilled by a half and half air and vapor-chamber cooler finished with a solitary fan, and is fueled by a solitary 8-pin connector. It's a reference-just outline, and accompanies one HDMI yield and trio of DisplayPort connectors. There's no DVI, be that as it may.
The Nano isn't the main card accessible in such a svelte structure element. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 is the most capable little card on the opposite side of the wall, and there are bounty more unassuming GPUs accessible at this size. In any case, AMD's card will be the most effective – and that implies it's likewise going to be the most costly. The Nano costs a forceful £600, which is around twice as much as a minimized GTX 970.
AMD RADEON R9 Fury NANO – Has Been Analyzed
Manufactured benchmarks are a successful marker of GPU execution, and here the Nano performs well. Its 1080p 3DMark consequence of 12,284 is brilliant: superior to anything Nvidia's GTX 980 and AMD's own standard Fury, and just behind the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury X.
The Nano's position simply behind this current era's leader cards was underlined somewhere else. Its Unigine 1440p pace of 39.5fps is superior to the 35.8fps scored by the GTX 980 and is one and only edge behind the standard Fury card. The Fury X sits somewhat higher at 42.7fps, and the GTX 980 Ti is top of the load, with an aftereffect of 51fps.
The Nano is sufficiently intense to bat 1080p benchmarks to the side. The Nano's poorest result at this unobtrusive determination was a normal of 85fps in Front line 4, and its best score was recorded in Tomb Marauder, where it topped out at a relentless 173fps.
At 1440p the Nano starts to flex its scaled down muscles. It was playable in each amusement I tried at this determination: its slowest midpoints came in Crysis 3 and Front line 4, yet despite everything it dealt with a fast 59fps in those recreations, and it crested with a score of 131fps in Tomb Marauder.
True amusements tests see the card fall into a recognizable position: easily in front of the GTX 980 and once in a while ready to coordinate the standard R9 Fury. It cannot rival the pace on offer by the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury X.
Its Crysis 3 pace of 59fps is the Nano's best 1440p result: it's superior to the 57fps of the Anger and the 46fps of the GTX 980, however it cannot coordinate the 63fps and 65fps of the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon Fury X.
In Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, the Fury Nano's 76fps normal was two and eight edges behind the Fury and Fury X, and nine edges behind the GTX 980 Ti; it was an agreeable ten edges speedier than the GTX 980. That example is rehashed in the greater part of diversions. In Battlefield 4, the Nano's 88fps normal was 11 outlines past the GTX 980 and just three casings behind the standard Fury card – yet the GTX 980 Ti drove the route with 103fps.
This was rehashed in diversions at 1440p as well. Here, the Nano could beat the GTX 980 in practically every amusement, except it was for the most part behind the pricier Nvidia card and both bigger AMD Fury chips. That is useful for putting the Nano in setting, yet dislike the Fiji center utilized for this card is going to battle at 1440p because of its brilliant midpoints in each test.
The higher determination of 3,840 x 2,160 is a difficult request for most GPUs – however even here the Nano demonstrated proficient. It oversaw midpoints past the key 30fps figure in everything except one diversion, with just Crysis 3 demonstrating troublesome – and here the Radeon still dealt with a not too bad 28fps. Its base casing rates are a little lower, however and still, after all that it returned sensible scores in many titles.
The Nano's position in the GPU chain of importance didn't change at this higher determination. It was speedier than the GTX 980 in each diversion, with holes of around 5fps in many titles – just in Fabulous Burglary Auto V did the Nano's 47fps normal fall nearer to the 45fps consequence of the GTX 980.
It couldn't get alternate cards at 4K, however. It was regularly inside two or three casings of the standard R9 Anger, yet crevices between the Nano and the GTX 980 Ti and Fury X were more extensive. In BioShock, the Nano's 46fps falled behind the GTX 980 Ti's 55fps and the Fury X's 53fps, and its 42fps normal in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor was six casings behind AMD's leader Fury X.
The Nano's stricter force limits implied my test apparatus was more economical than with any past Anger card. At its pinnacle, my Nano-controlled machine drew 294W from the mains, which thinks about positively to the 351W draw from the Anger and the 369W of the Fury X. It's not exactly my machine required with a GTX 980 Ti inside, yet it couldn't beat the 273W force draw of the standard GTX 980.
The modest Fury card figured out how to direct its temperature well, notwithstanding its little measurements. The Nano's top temperature of 75°C is somewhat higher than the Anger X's pinnacle heat level, yet it's nothing to stress over – it's even a couple of degrees cooler than both Nvidia cards. The sensible power and commotion levels are particularly satisfying, in light of the fact that the Nano's reference plan won't be changed by any board accomplices.
The clamor levels are trickier to judge. The single fan is to a great degree calm, yet the issue originates from a surprising source – the Nano's capacitors.
The littler size of the Nano implies AMD has needed to pack littler capacitors into a more tightly space, and that implies the loops inside the capacitors vibrate at a higher recurrence amid gameplay. The capacitors create a louder whimper when harder recreations are run at the same time, benevolently, the clamor dies down when the card's workload is decreased.
AMD has perceived the issue, and yields that there is no hope – the crying from the loops is simply something that happens with a card, for example, the Nano. It's no more awful than the clamor created from top of the line cards with various fans, however it's simply higher-pitched. Earphones, speakers or commotion hosing highlights on a case will make it more endurable.
Different THINGS TO CONSIDER
The Nano is costly, however a significant part of the cost is unmistakably an impression of the phenomenal execution on offer in such a small space. In spite of the fact that this is noteworthy, is it worth burning through £600 on a card, for example, this to play recreations on a solitary screen?
There are far less expensive options for 1080p and 1440p gaming. On the AMD side of the wall sit models, for example, the Radeon R9 380, which offers a conservative configuration for under £200. Nvidia's board accomplices offer the GTX 970 and GTX 960 in littler renditions for under £300 and £200 individually.
Likewise take note of that AMD's reference plan for the Nano can't be changed, so the chip won't be accessible with various coolers or overclocks.
Decision
AMD's most recent card is one of its most stunning and great. It's the first occasion when I've seen genuine top of the line power inside a card that is sufficiently little to easily fit inside a smaller than normal ITX suspension – and it accomplishes this without turning out to be excessively hot or uproarious.
Its execution levels are reliably noteworthy. It can play anything at 1080p and 1440p, and most diversions at 4K. Furthermore, it isn't a long ways behind AMD's full-sized leads – which isn't amazing given its common Fiji center.
There are both exacting and metaphorical costs to be paid for such traveling innovation. The £600 value places it in accordance with cards, for example, the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Anger X, yet the thinned down Nano can't contend with those chips in our benchmarks. There are various less expensive choices: a card, for example, the GTX 980 is never a long ways behind in benchmarks, however it costs around £200 less.
This implies the creative Nano will sit at the highest point of the business sector as an extravagance, corner item for those with little shape element rigs who would prefer not to trade off on execution. I hope to see littler representation cards keep on pushing the execution envelope – yet at this moment, this is as much a proof of idea as a feasible item.
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Nano is a standout amongst the most energizing Graphic cards I've seen for a considerable length of time and, at just 6in long, it's likewise one of the littlest. In any case, the Nano's minor size doesn't mean it's underpowered – it utilizes the same center as the creature AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.
Packing an intense center inside a small undercarriage isn't simple or modest. I'm captivated to perceive how the Anger Nano stacks up against customary top of the line cards, and on the off chance that it can be justified regardless of its £600 cost.
AMD RADEON R9 Fury Nano – In the engine
The Fury Nano is AMD's first endeavor at putting such an effective center inside a little bundle. It appears an odd move, yet when you consider what's at present going ahead in the PC market, it bodes well.
In the course of recent years, design centers and different parts have seen a support in effectiveness. So while this has prompted enhanced execution, power utilization and warmth yield levels have leveled, or started to decay.
Such patterns have significantly affected illustrations cards and the more extensive PC market. In the representation circle, it's given organizations, for example, AMD the chance to explore different avenues regarding littler and more creative plans, since there's less requirement for leader cards to highlight enormous heatsinks and a large number of fans. In the realm of PCs, smaller than usual ITX and miniaturized scale ATX frameworks are turning out to be more famous choices for top of the line rigs.
AMD has paid some dues keeping in mind the end goal to construct this card. For one thing, it's picked Fiji centers that devour just the most reduced rates of force, and this form of Fiji is joined by four VRM stages instead of the six incorporated into the Anger X – a choice taken to deal with Fiji's elevated force prerequisites.
The core still uses 4,096 stream processors and 8.9 billion transistors, however it's been reduced to around 900MHz – 150MHz lower than the Fury X. The diminishments in clock and VRM, and AMD's decision of force productive Fiji centers, implies that the Fury Nano has a force farthest point of 175W. That is critical to delivering such a little card, since it's 100W not exactly the Fury X.
The majority of AMD's Anger marked cards convey High Transfer speed Memory, as opposed to the more normal GDDR5. The HBM chips have a far more extensive interface than GDDR5, which means more information can be handled in spite of the chips running at far lower speeds. On paper the 500MHz for memory is poor, however the 4,096-piece interface is eight times as wide as past leads. The Fury Nano has 4GB of memory, which is half as much as Nvidia's cards oversee – yet those chips use more established GDDR5.
The Nano is chilled by a half and half air and vapor-chamber cooler finished with a solitary fan, and is fueled by a solitary 8-pin connector. It's a reference-just outline, and accompanies one HDMI yield and trio of DisplayPort connectors. There's no DVI, be that as it may.
The Nano isn't the main card accessible in such a svelte structure element. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 is the most capable little card on the opposite side of the wall, and there are bounty more unassuming GPUs accessible at this size. In any case, AMD's card will be the most effective – and that implies it's likewise going to be the most costly. The Nano costs a forceful £600, which is around twice as much as a minimized GTX 970.
AMD RADEON R9 Fury NANO – Has Been Analyzed
Manufactured benchmarks are a successful marker of GPU execution, and here the Nano performs well. Its 1080p 3DMark consequence of 12,284 is brilliant: superior to anything Nvidia's GTX 980 and AMD's own standard Fury, and just behind the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury X.
The Nano's position simply behind this current era's leader cards was underlined somewhere else. Its Unigine 1440p pace of 39.5fps is superior to the 35.8fps scored by the GTX 980 and is one and only edge behind the standard Fury card. The Fury X sits somewhat higher at 42.7fps, and the GTX 980 Ti is top of the load, with an aftereffect of 51fps.
The Nano is sufficiently intense to bat 1080p benchmarks to the side. The Nano's poorest result at this unobtrusive determination was a normal of 85fps in Front line 4, and its best score was recorded in Tomb Marauder, where it topped out at a relentless 173fps.
At 1440p the Nano starts to flex its scaled down muscles. It was playable in each amusement I tried at this determination: its slowest midpoints came in Crysis 3 and Front line 4, yet despite everything it dealt with a fast 59fps in those recreations, and it crested with a score of 131fps in Tomb Marauder.
True amusements tests see the card fall into a recognizable position: easily in front of the GTX 980 and once in a while ready to coordinate the standard R9 Fury. It cannot rival the pace on offer by the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury X.
Its Crysis 3 pace of 59fps is the Nano's best 1440p result: it's superior to the 57fps of the Anger and the 46fps of the GTX 980, however it cannot coordinate the 63fps and 65fps of the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon Fury X.
In Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, the Fury Nano's 76fps normal was two and eight edges behind the Fury and Fury X, and nine edges behind the GTX 980 Ti; it was an agreeable ten edges speedier than the GTX 980. That example is rehashed in the greater part of diversions. In Battlefield 4, the Nano's 88fps normal was 11 outlines past the GTX 980 and just three casings behind the standard Fury card – yet the GTX 980 Ti drove the route with 103fps.
This was rehashed in diversions at 1440p as well. Here, the Nano could beat the GTX 980 in practically every amusement, except it was for the most part behind the pricier Nvidia card and both bigger AMD Fury chips. That is useful for putting the Nano in setting, yet dislike the Fiji center utilized for this card is going to battle at 1440p because of its brilliant midpoints in each test.
The higher determination of 3,840 x 2,160 is a difficult request for most GPUs – however even here the Nano demonstrated proficient. It oversaw midpoints past the key 30fps figure in everything except one diversion, with just Crysis 3 demonstrating troublesome – and here the Radeon still dealt with a not too bad 28fps. Its base casing rates are a little lower, however and still, after all that it returned sensible scores in many titles.
The Nano's position in the GPU chain of importance didn't change at this higher determination. It was speedier than the GTX 980 in each diversion, with holes of around 5fps in many titles – just in Fabulous Burglary Auto V did the Nano's 47fps normal fall nearer to the 45fps consequence of the GTX 980.
It couldn't get alternate cards at 4K, however. It was regularly inside two or three casings of the standard R9 Anger, yet crevices between the Nano and the GTX 980 Ti and Fury X were more extensive. In BioShock, the Nano's 46fps falled behind the GTX 980 Ti's 55fps and the Fury X's 53fps, and its 42fps normal in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor was six casings behind AMD's leader Fury X.
The Nano's stricter force limits implied my test apparatus was more economical than with any past Anger card. At its pinnacle, my Nano-controlled machine drew 294W from the mains, which thinks about positively to the 351W draw from the Anger and the 369W of the Fury X. It's not exactly my machine required with a GTX 980 Ti inside, yet it couldn't beat the 273W force draw of the standard GTX 980.
The modest Fury card figured out how to direct its temperature well, notwithstanding its little measurements. The Nano's top temperature of 75°C is somewhat higher than the Anger X's pinnacle heat level, yet it's nothing to stress over – it's even a couple of degrees cooler than both Nvidia cards. The sensible power and commotion levels are particularly satisfying, in light of the fact that the Nano's reference plan won't be changed by any board accomplices.
The clamor levels are trickier to judge. The single fan is to a great degree calm, yet the issue originates from a surprising source – the Nano's capacitors.
The littler size of the Nano implies AMD has needed to pack littler capacitors into a more tightly space, and that implies the loops inside the capacitors vibrate at a higher recurrence amid gameplay. The capacitors create a louder whimper when harder recreations are run at the same time, benevolently, the clamor dies down when the card's workload is decreased.
AMD has perceived the issue, and yields that there is no hope – the crying from the loops is simply something that happens with a card, for example, the Nano. It's no more awful than the clamor created from top of the line cards with various fans, however it's simply higher-pitched. Earphones, speakers or commotion hosing highlights on a case will make it more endurable.
Different THINGS TO CONSIDER
The Nano is costly, however a significant part of the cost is unmistakably an impression of the phenomenal execution on offer in such a small space. In spite of the fact that this is noteworthy, is it worth burning through £600 on a card, for example, this to play recreations on a solitary screen?
There are far less expensive options for 1080p and 1440p gaming. On the AMD side of the wall sit models, for example, the Radeon R9 380, which offers a conservative configuration for under £200. Nvidia's board accomplices offer the GTX 970 and GTX 960 in littler renditions for under £300 and £200 individually.
Likewise take note of that AMD's reference plan for the Nano can't be changed, so the chip won't be accessible with various coolers or overclocks.
Decision
AMD's most recent card is one of its most stunning and great. It's the first occasion when I've seen genuine top of the line power inside a card that is sufficiently little to easily fit inside a smaller than normal ITX suspension – and it accomplishes this without turning out to be excessively hot or uproarious.
Its execution levels are reliably noteworthy. It can play anything at 1080p and 1440p, and most diversions at 4K. Furthermore, it isn't a long ways behind AMD's full-sized leads – which isn't amazing given its common Fiji center.
There are both exacting and metaphorical costs to be paid for such traveling innovation. The £600 value places it in accordance with cards, for example, the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Anger X, yet the thinned down Nano can't contend with those chips in our benchmarks. There are various less expensive choices: a card, for example, the GTX 980 is never a long ways behind in benchmarks, however it costs around £200 less.
This implies the creative Nano will sit at the highest point of the business sector as an extravagance, corner item for those with little shape element rigs who would prefer not to trade off on execution. I hope to see littler representation cards keep on pushing the execution envelope – yet at this moment, this is as much a proof of idea as a feasible item.
| Graphics Chipset | |
| Video Chipset | AMD RADEON R9 Fury Nano |
| Core Clock Speed | 900MHz |
| Memory | |
| Introduced Video Memory | 4GB |
| Compelling Memory Clock Speed | 500MHz |
| Availability and Extra Components | |
| Interface Connection | DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4a |
| Highlights | |
| Type | Graphics |
SO, that's all about AMD RADEON R9 FURY Nano Review. Hopefully the content can show you information when you looking for. See you Next Time.
https://amdgalery.blogspot.co.id/
0 comments:
Post a Comment