Gadgetory

hi and welcome back to hardware I'm box i'm your host Matt and it's been a busy few weeks to me after holiday in Vietnam and Cambodia I hope you enjoyed the last few videos that I filmed in advance but now I'm back with something relatively new md's radiant iron iron a no i won't go into too much background behind the fury line and the nano as it covered this in detail in our fury nano preview video there's only a few things you need to know firstly the nanos the compact card and the fury lineup coming in at forty percent shorter than the reference 290x it features the same 4096 stream processors as the furious but runs at a lower average clock speed and thus consumes around thirty six percent less power because of this the Nano doesn't require liquid cooling AMD is claiming that the nana will be the fastest and most power-efficient mini ITX card on the market feeding the gtx 970 by thirty percent we're going to test the two resolutions for you guys now let's head to the benchmark lab and find out if AMD's claims are true first up we tested far cry 4 which tends to favor the red team at 4k the Nano amazed 36 frames per second just one frame shy of the fury three frames showed the tight necks and six frames shy of the fury axe at 1440p the nano produced 71 frames per second again this was just one frame shy of the fury and three frames shy of the tight necks it edged out the 980 TI both resolutions a feat we don't expect it to repeat in any other games next up we have GTA 5 a 4k this time the nano managed 41 frames three friends behind the 980 TI and the timex led the single GPU pack the regular fury only managed one frame per second higher again and the fury ax managed four more frames the Nano clocked 80 frames per second in GTA at 40 and 40 p again only just trailing the fury 980 TI and fury acts by a fairly negligible amount all five or less in battlefield hardline the Nano produced to possibly playable 36 frames per second on average at 4k this one's again comparable to the fury and just three frames shy but fury ex battlefield hardline at 1440p was the only time I saw the gtx 980 beat out the r9 owner and the I no fury though not by much all cards tested produced it comfortably smooth 68 frames per second or higher at 4k and thief the nano clock 36 frames per second this time edging out the 980 TI by a couple of frames consistently with our other test results it was a single frame behind the fury but only two frames behind the fury axe and the tight next this time at 1440p the rankings stayed the same the Nano again edged out the 980 TI and was only a little behind the fury fury axe and tight next in thief watch dogs at 4k saw the Nano produced 37 frames per second right in its standard 4k ballpark and a little behind its bigger brothers at 1440p 70 frames per second was enough to hold its place over the gtx 980 and again slide it in behind the fury fury axe and high-end geforce cards in the witcher the 4k resolution is pretty unplayable with any single card set up the Nano at self-managed is 25 frames per second and was consistently behind as longer rivals tested by the 390 x and the gtx 980 in our final game test and then I was able to make 50 frames per second in the witcher 3 at 1440p this was a single frame behind the fury three frames behind the fury axe and six frames behind the 980 TI as we mentioned the unknown Nana was a very power efficient card plugged into our gaming system the entire setup consumed just 288 wats while scamming compared to 302 wats with the fury 318 wats with the 980 TI and 336 wats with the fury axe the Nano is on the higher end of the temperature scale when gaming compared to its rivals and of course much hotter than the fury X which is liquid cooled we expect that the board partner models with improved cooling systems will be able to bring this figure down power limit increase by 50% we're able to squeeze an extra frames per second out of the Nano at 4k and battlefield hardline allowing it to leapfrog the fury and fall just a frame behind the fury acts in thief at 4k the overclocked Nana was again able to produce an extra two frames per second bring it up to 38 frames per second also 4k watchdogs told the same tale with the overclocked nano pumping out just an extra two frames per second with the power limit increased this again allowed it to outperform the fury if only just at 40 and 40 p the Nano again managed next to two frames per second in battlefield hardline so percentage-wise you get a bigger performance increase in battlefield at 4k resolutions 1440p thief allowed us a three frames second increase of the Nano overclocked this is again enough to beat out of fury it but not quite enough to jump in front of the fury axe watch dogs at 1440p also managed to three frame per second increase 473 frames per second on average compared to just 72 frames from the standard clock fury and 74 frames from the standard clock fury acts so as you've now seen the Nano is only really slightly slower than the full-sized theory and it also managed to beat the GeForce 980 at both resolutions tested although unless you've specifically after a very short graphics card for a hundred fifty dollars less a strong case can certainly be made for the 980 compared to the 980 TI it fell short performance wise as expected but did manage to be more power efficient which is a plus with the nano and the 980 TI come in at six hundred fifty dollars so again we'd only really recommend the nano to those who are really looking to save space the 650 dollar price tag also matches that of the fury x itself and you saw the nano of course fall short of its fully fledged big brother in our tests obviously you sacrifice some performance for the uniquely small form factor however I think it's really tough sell considering the fury ax is reasonably small itself and fits into a lot of mini ITX gaming cases already granted you need to squeeze the radiator in too but for the most part this is a non-issue also once you factor in the rear position of the 8-pin PCIe connector the NATO isn't quite as small as first thought in terms of overclocking raising the clock speed gave us no return and in some cases actually slowed down the performance slightly increasing the power limit however that the Nano was able to maintain around 1000 megahertz clock speed and boost performs the just about match the fury ex temperatures weren't affected too much hovering only a couple of degrees higher than standard but the fan speed and subsequent noise was higher annoyingly and nano did produce quite a lot of coil wire which is a real shame and not something any 650 dollar graphics card shouldn't suffer from so come on please AMD no more squealing graphics cards please after checking our AMD's reference design of the Nano we're optimistic about seeing some great designs and performance from the boiler partners with improved cooling setups and increased power limits we could see some production cards that match the fury acts for performance All Things Considered I think the Nano is certainly a reprised it's not quite unique enough to justify the price tag although it's impressively small and efficient balk a performance is potentially playable but not sufficient to satisfy true enthusiasts and the nano certainly delivered a more enjoyable experience at 40 and 40 p overall the Nano is an exceptional graphics card though unfortunately it does suffer from a few minor design flaws and ultimately a bad asking price as always thanks for watching another hardware on box review i'm your host Matt and I'd love to hear what you guys think to the know know in the comments hit like hit subscribe and we'll see you next time yeah