Test: AMD R9 Nano

Konklusion

Det har været interessant at lege med AMD's R9 Nano kort, og det er på mange måder et godt gennemtænkt produkt. Dog må man sige, at kortet primært er tiltænkt SSF PC'er, hvor pladsen er trang og hvor man ønsker den bedste ydelse på meget lille plads - og på det felt vinder R9 Nano uden tvivl. Når det så er sagt, så har vi også kortets store brødre som R9 Fury og R9 Fury X, som mere er mindet til den almindelige PC bygger i mATX eller ATX størrelse, og de kort giver lige en lille del mere ydelse ud  af kassen, men også til en anden pris. Det betyder, at hvis man gerne vil have Fiji chippen i sin PC, men synes Fury kortene er for dyre, så står man egentlig kun med valget af et ITX/SFF baseret kort til ens ATX maskineri ! For dem hvor udseende betyder noget, så er det måske allerede grunden til at R9 Nano bliver valgt fra. Så hvis du har R9 Nano i tankerne, så overvej måske hvilken type PC du bygger omkring det.

Innovation/Teknologi - 4
AMD's Fiji chip har helt klart givet firmaet et velfortjent spark i den rigtig retning på grafikkort markedet, og der er mange gode tiltag i chippen som AMD helt klart kommer til at arbejde videre på, især HBM 2 bliver en rigtig god ting, da 4GB HBM på trods at den store båndbredde, viser nogle latency problemer i høje opløsninger og store teksturer skal streames - her skal Vram bufferen altså øges.

Design/Layout - 5
Jeg holder meget, af designet på R9 Nano. Kortet virker gennemtænkt og hver del har sin rette plads. Kortet ser bare rigtig godt ud. Dog ville en bagplade lige have gjort lidt ekstra for det visuelle, men det er i småtingsafdelingen.

Ydelse - 4
Jeg har været meget i tvivl om hvad jeg skulle give Nano i ydelses point da det på en side yder rigtig godt, mens der på den anden ligger to andre kort, der næsten yder med op. R9 390 og R9 390X er nok AMD's egne største konkurrenter må Nano og Fury serien generelt. Selv om det er "rebrands", så er ydelsen og prisen med dem.
Hvis jeg ser Nano sammenholdt med team grøn, så er GTX 980 dets største konkurrent, mens GTX 980Ti er milevidt foran.
Jeg ville nok have givet kortet 3 point, men objektivt set så er kortet hurtigere end R9 390, R9 390X og yder med GTX 980 så derfor et 4 tal - dog et lille af slagsen.

Pris - 2
Med en pris på knap 4000kr er det ikke billigt at anskaffe sig Nano, og som sagt er Nano's største konkurrenter R9 390 og R9 390X, der begge fås for under 3000.- kr, og som ikke er meget langsommere. Så derfor bliver det ikke til mere end et 2 tal på prisen.

UK summary

It has been interesting to play with AMD's R9 Nano card, and it is in many ways a really well thought through product. However one must say, that the card is mainly targeted at SFF PC's where room is short and narrow, and where you wish to get the best possible performance in a tight spot - and in that regard the R9 Nano wins without any doubt. When that is said, we also have the cards bigger brothers in shape of R9 Fury and R9 Fury X, which are much more minded towards the regular mATX/ATX PC user, and this cards give you a bit more performance but also at a bigger price tag. That means if you are interested in getting the Fiji chip into your PC but thinks the Fury cards are a bit too expensive, then you only real alternative is an ITX/SFF based card for your ATX rig. So for those where looks matter, then it may already be the reason why the R9 Nano gets skipped. So if you have the R9 Nano card in mind due to is price/perfomance then you may consider what kind of PC you want to build around it.

Innovation/Technology - 4
AMD's Fiji chip has defintely boosted AMD's graphics departement in the right direction and there are a lot of positive things to be said about the chip. AMD will continue to evolve on its design and the foresight to HBM 2 is very promising - especially since we cannot deny that 4GB HBM is showing latency issues at higher resolutions and where large textures are streamed through the memory - only an increased size in Vram buffer will help.

Design/Layout - 5
I really like the design of the R9 Nano. The cards seems very well thought through by the designers and every part sits at the right spot and looks clean. Still a back plate would have looked nice, but it's really only a minor complain.

Performance - 4
I have been in much doubt about what grade I should give the R9 Nano because on one side it performs extremely well, but on the other there are two other cards, which almost perform the same. R9 390 8GB and R9 390X 8GB are without doubt AMD's own largest competitors to the R9 Nano and the Fury series in general. Eventhough they are "rebranded" cards they perform astonishingly well and have a price tag to compete with. If is compare R9 Nano with team green then only the GTX 980 is it's largest competitor while the GTX 980Ti is miles ahead.
I would have given the card a score of 3, but objectively speaking then the card is faster than R9 390, R9 390X and trade blow with GTX 980, so therefore I'll give it a score tiny score of 4.

Price - 2
With a price tag around 4000Dkk the Nano isn't a cheap card to purchase, and as said before the Nano's largest competitors is from AMD's own ranks in form of R9 390 8GB and R9 390X 8GB which both can be bought for below 3000Dkk and they aren't much slower. Therefore the Nano only scores a 2.

Test: AMD R9 Nano

Innovation / Teknologi	4
Design - Layout	5
Ydelse	4
Pris	2
Samlet	75%