AMD Unveils Radeon R9 Nano, Targets Mini ITX Gaming Systems With a New Fury 60
MojoKid writes: AMD today added a third card to its new Fury line that's arguably the most intriguing of the bunch, the Radeon R9 Nano. True to its name, the Nano is a very compact card, though don't be fooled by its diminutive stature. Lurking inside this 6-inch graphics card is a Fiji GPU core built on a 28nm manufacturing process paired with 4GB of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM). It's a full 1.5 inches shorter than the standard Fury X, and unlike its liquid cooled sibling, there's no radiator and fan assembly to mount. The Fury Nano sports 64 compute units with 64 stream processors each for a total of 4,096 stream processors, just like Fury X. It also has an engine clock of up to 1,000MHz and pushes 8.19 TFLOPs of compute performance. That's within striking distance of the Fury X, which features a 1,050MHz engine clock at 8.6 TFLOPs. Ars Technica, too, takes a look at the new Nano.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Nano vs. Fury X (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I read *that* headline wrong (Score:1)
I thought at first that AMD unveiled it "with a new furry" and I thought, finally, an interesting Slashdot story. Maybe some kind of platypus/monkey hybrid or something. But I was disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
That way --> to the Geek Hierarchy chart [brunching.com]
Bringing this back on topic: Disappointed with new tech? Welcome to the club. Hardware has become so stagnant in the last 5 years. 28nm. *yawn*. Yet-another-Megaherz or "core". /sarcasm Yay.
When are the GPU OEM's going to move to 22 nm?
When the hell is Knights Corner [wikipedia.org] going to be ready for the masses?
Business as usual. Smaller, Faster, Cheaper.
When is the next (tech) revolution going to happen?
Re: (Score:3)
Bringing this back on topic: Disappointed with new tech? Welcome to the club. Hardware has become so stagnant in the last 5 years. 28nm. *yawn*. Yet-another-Megaherz or "core". /sarcasm Yay. (...) When is the next (tech) revolution going to happen?
Actually I feel we've had several since the PC revolution. There was the network revolution with the Internet. The mobile revolution that lets you use it anywhere, any time. And with fiber rolling out I'd say we're in the middle of a bandwidth revolution. Even if you extrapolate like crazy going from 8GB to 16GB RAM isn't going to feel like going from 8MB to 16MB. The changes were huge because there was so much you couldn't do with 8MB, there's not so much you can't do with 8GB. Welcome back to the real wor
Re: (Score:1)
no fiji under $500? (Score:1, Interesting)
are they insane??
what does binning for low power usage mean, exactly? less performance, i suppose... and that translates somehow into "luxury product", which is just as pricey as their flagship product? i'm not getting luxury cooling, or luxury performance, but i'm still paying the luxury prices? i am essentially paying more for the silicon of an inferior performing product. what kind of reality distortion field bullshit is this??
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Fury X and Pro chips may or may not run at the voltage these chips do and they'll probably leak more current even when they do.
In short... this is a higher efficiency chip. Most likely it would be able to clock higher than Fury X or Pro chips due to less leakage as well given appropriate cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
what does binning for low power usage mean, exactly?
Some chips perform well with low drive current, think about it like being able to read reasonably well in poor lighting.
and that translates somehow into "luxury product"
If lower power usage or being smaller/lighter/quieter is more important than raw performance, it might be. All depends on what you value.
Anyway, the really big question is the headline which you didn't mention anymore, not what this card is but what it isn't. I expected the Nano to be half the Fury at half the price competing in the $2-300 market, instead it looks like the R300 series is h
Card is huge (Score:1)
Fifteen years. (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2000, the fastest supercomputer in the world was IBM's ASCI White [wikipedia.org], with a peak performance of 7.226 TFLOPS. Its theoretical maximum performance was 12.3 TFLOPS. It weighed over 100 tons, and drew 3MW of power, plus another 3MW for cooling.
One. Six. Inch. Card.
Re:Fifteen years. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't seen those before. That was pretty awesome.
Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I watch it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. That's 7.226 TFlops of DOUBLE PRECISION performance on the supercomputers.
Even the full-bore Furry-X gets about 0.55 TFlops of double precision and let's optimistically assume that these cut-down parts can still pull 0.5 TFlops. That's 14.452 (round up to 15) cards.
Now, Knight's Landing? That's about 3 TFlops of double-precision in a single chip, so three CHIPS to beat that supercomputer.. not too shabby.
Still pretty impressive, but that's just proof that despite the naysayers, Moore's law is alive
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that graphics cards use lower-precision floating-point representations reflects the fact that not all applications need double precision. Single precision is obviously no good for something highly nonlinear and iterative (like CFD), but it's enough for the modeling behind 3D graphics; that's why these single-precision monsters are scaling out (volume of production) so rapidly, right?
Maybe we can agree on "native precision". I'm not sure ASCI White would have gone much faster if you threw it a probl
Re: (Score:3)
Your cell phone packs considerably more compute power than a Cray 1.
Cellphone? (Score:2)
I probably have wristwatches with more power than a Cray 1 by now. And a $50 BeagleBoneBlack is probably way faster than a Cray 2. The amount of Moore's Law since the Cray 1 came out is just silly, even though it has slowed down a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the Cray 1 was 40 years ago, not 15.
In other news, I'm apparently old.
175W (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Buy rectangular case.
Rotate 90 degrees so the front faces upward.
???
Profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is a bit of clearance between the fan and the desk. Put a small bit of wood under each corner.
Re: (Score:3)
And as a related issue, who is making a true SFF power supply big enough to handle that card plus a gaming-class CPU? A lot of "ITX" rigs are built using configured mini-towers (e.g. the Bitfenix Prodigy), but if I wanted to throw one of those in a vanilla case like an Apex MI-08 or Antec ISK-150, their PSUs would die approximately 10 seconds after I fired up Crysis or whatever it is that kids are playing these days.
Re: (Score:2)
The Antec ISK-600 fits a full-size ATX PSU and is a very nice case. (I admit, it's bigger than I wanted, but I got it on sale and for $20 I can't complain much.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The card will keep itself cool, all you need is a case that allows air from the outside to the heatsink and then back outside. Given this would be at the edge of the board, simply having a hole with a fan grill over it would do.
6 inches of Fury (Score:1)
That's all my baby needs
Sorry, no (Score:3)
At $450 it would have been intriguing. At $650 it's pointless.
Grandkids (Score:2)
Yeah I was kinda of excited until I saw the price... Also while the power savings are considerable, it is still pretty high for an ITX build.
That said, it is a nice technology showcase. I've been an ATI/AMD fan for awhile, they are still top of the game, at least in GPU anyway. The good thing is, my last build wasn't all that long ago (and it was my first ITX build), so I don't *need* to do another anytime soon. That said, buy the time I do, these babies, or more likely their technological grandbabies will
How To Make it cool? (Score:1)