Gadgetory

I can't help but wish AMD would release products such as the Nano of these competitive prices rather than wait five or six months and then make the product a viable option at $650 the Nano was very much a niche product and that that price should have only been considered by users who simply couldn't make the space for the better fooled furious our original best bang for your buck GPU video founded on average the Nano came at a cost of over $8 per frame whereas the 390x cost just over $6 per frame and the 390 less than $5 per frame now it's priceless / - $500 the Nano plummets to a similar cost per frames at 390 X which is a seriously good deal for a high-end graphics card thankfully the Nano price adjustment can also be felt down under the fury X currently retails for our 1000 Australian dollars and a standard fury $900 while the Nano can be had for 850 dollars though that's still around 40% more than the 390x asking price anyway the point is the nato has now become a viable option as its price to compete closer to the geforce gtx 980 then the 980ti not too long ago we put together another head-to-head GPU battle featuring the r9 390x and gtx 980 AMD came out on top providing a much stronger cost per frame so it'll be interesting to see if the Nano can do the same so without wasting any more time let's get to the benchmarks first up we have battlefield 4 and here both graphics cards delivered the same 59 FPS average of the stock reference clock speeds once overclocked to their maximum stable values the GTX 980 pulled ahead to enjoy a 5 percent performance advantage the GTX 980 gets stomped in Batman after 9 the Nana was a little over 20 percent faster using this stop clock speeds overclocking does help him video reduce the deficit but even so the Nana was still a comfortable 40 percent faster the Assassin's Creed syndicate performance sees the nano provide the highest average frame rate well the GTX 980 didn't dip as low when looking at the minimum frame rate overclocked the GTX 980 once again took charge albeit by a very slim margin the nano was able to leave gtx 980 behind in call of duty black ops 3 and when comparing the cars at this stock clocks over clocking both cards allowed the GTX 980 to catch the Neto and even deliver a slightly better minimum frame rate like most of the results seen so far the GTX 980 and nano of a similar performance at the default AMD and NVIDIA clock specifications and once overclocked the 980 finds itself at a slight advantage Grand Theft Auto 5 plays much the same on the GTX 980 as it does on the nano out of the box however once we have a clock both cards 980 this time finds herself well ahead of the Nano gtx 980 was faster in Just Cause 3 but it was just one frame faster on average when comparing the stock configurations over clocks the 980 became 3 frames per second faster on average with 6 FPS faster when compared the minimum frame rate both the Nano and the GTX 980 delivered the same exact performance in our maps using the stock clock speeds over clocks the 980 took the lead by just 3% when comparing the average frame rates testing with rainbows succeeds we find that the nano is able to crash the GTX 980 both focus and margin interestingly it was only around 1% faster when comparing the minimum frame rate the overclocking results are interesting as well here the Nana was faster when comparing the average frame rate but slower when looking at the minimum the Star Wars Battlefront results are similar to those just seen when testing was rainbow succeeds at the stop clock speeds and I was 14% faster when looking at the average frame rate the 4% slower when it comes to the minimum the overclocking results are even more extreme here the nano is 4 percent faster for the average frame rate the tips 14% lower for the minimum frame rate last up we have the Witcher 3 Wild Hunt and here the results of very competitive though it's the GTX 980 that drops down the lowest while sustaining a similar or faster average frame rate as you might have expected the Maximo based GTX 980 does consume less power than the nano here we see the total system consumption is 17 percent lower with the 980 and 20% lower once overclocked the Just Cause 3 power consumption figures aren't quite as extreme he's a nano consumed 12% more power at the stop clock speeds and just 9% more once overclocked having tested almost a dozen games it's now clear why AMD reduced the price of the Radeon r9 nano buy so much now at $500 it competes very well with the slightly cheaper GeForce GTX 980 which we have priced currently at 480 dollars comparing they're out of the box they'll stop performance if you will we found that the Nano was on average 6 percent faster than the 980 no need it was only able to better the Nano in Just Cause 3 while it provided the same performance in battlefield 4 Mad Max and GTA 5 giving only a $20 or so difference in price it's fair to say both GPUs deliver a similar bang for your buck what have you planned to overclock doing so you can boost the performance of the Nano by 9 percent while the 980 can be pushed to produce a 17 percent higher average frame rate as the better overclocker the 980 was able to make up the performance deficit to come in just one frame per second fast for an average this means if you plan to overclock the 980 is technically the better value option of the 2 though of course there's very little in it it is worth noting that we tested using stop reference cards and while all the nanos at this point feature the same PCB design and cooler this isn't the case of the 980 the reference 980 that we tested is inferior virtually every one of em videos boy partner designs when it comes to cooling and even power delivery for the GPU therefore it's possible you can achieve even better over clocks and hours the Nano is seriously tempting at the revised $500 price tag but I'm not sure I pick one up over a 980 other than it's a teeny tiny size the nano offers no real advantage over the 980 s so unless you're pressed for space it's not the best option this is interesting given we found the 390 X is quite a bit better than the 980 in terms of value on paper the Nano should be up to 45% faster than the 390 X and giving it now and it costs 25% more it seems like a no-brainer unfortunately as is often the case it's not that black and white and instead the Nano is only around 20% faster than 390x I now Ridge still if you don't plan to overclock then the Nana was likely going to be the preferred choice but be aware most 980 s come with at least 10% factory overclock so that's going to bridge the gap between the two anyway in the end if you're unconcerned with card lengths but care about efficiency and overclocking Headroom and the 980 is the cards you get then obviously those seeking a compact graphics card will gravitate towards the nano as a side note if you plan on setting up a DIY liquid cooling system then the nano could be the preferred choice you can keep the card cool enough achieving fury X or even greater performance through overclocking as possible which will place the nano more on par with 980ti rather than the vanilla 980 as always please let me know what you guys think and be sure to let us know which of the two you would choose if you happen to be I'm fortunate enough to have $500 burning a hole in your back pocket thanks for joining me again and I'll see you guys next time you