Radeon R9 Nano thread
- Thread starter Nagorak
- Start date
noko
New member
I have no local Microcenter
The drive up to George and back would cost me more then if I paid the outrageous price of $399 on NewEgg or $400+ elsewhere for an I7 6700K. I5 6600K for $269 is also too high at NewEgg but is cheaper there then other places. Seems like all the prices are way above MSRP. With Intel you get an anemic locked processor or pay out your . s s for an unlocked one. No wonder I kept with AMD in the past. I was hoping to see some fair deals at this time not low inventory overpriced items.Pretty sure I am going with a M2 SSD, probably the Samsung 950Pro
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...467&cm_re=M2_ssd_drive-_-20-147-467-_-Product
Plenty of items to pick choose and buy before getting the Nano.
SoCalMX70
New member
I think I will be picking one of these up for the HTPC around Christmas. Had no intention of doing any "real" gaming on it, but.... just picked up a new 4k tv and surround sound system for the living room and decided to try out Steam "Big Picture" + Xbox One Controller on the couch. It's amazing!
Current card in the htpc box is a Sapphire 380 (mini version), it gets the job done, but PC Master Race.
Current card in the htpc box is a Sapphire 380 (mini version), it gets the job done, but PC Master Race.
noko
New member
I think I will be picking one of these up for the HTPC around Christmas. Had no intention of doing any "real" gaming on it, but.... just picked up a new 4k tv and surround sound system for the living room and decided to try out Steam "Big Picture" + Xbox One Controller on the couch. It's amazing!
Current card in the htpc box is a Sapphire 380 (mini version), it gets the job done, but PC Master Race.
I hope your new 4K TV has a display port then for best results. HDMI 1.4a will be limiting.
SoCalMX70
New member
Display Port --> HDMI 2.0 dongles are coming and the latest AMD drivers now support it.
noko
New member
HDMI 2.0a will be the real ticket for UHDTV but that also means UHDTV's needing to support that as well. Allows for 10bit, 12bit, HDR, Protected content from new UHD Blu-Ray players coming next year. Most important though for quality reasons is Chroma sampling of 4,4,4 vice HDMI 2.0 4,2,0.
SoCalMX70
New member
My particular TV isn't 4:4:4, so meh... also, all of my content is digital, whether through apps or the HTPC (no blu-ray drive or player). I am sure it will undoubtedly matter to many (or most) people though.
The Mac
New member
club3d adapter now out, $35.
fully HDCP 2.2 and 4:4:4 compliant.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/cl...-2-to-hdmi-2-active-adapters-at-4k-60-hz.html
fully HDCP 2.2 and 4:4:4 compliant.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/cl...-2-to-hdmi-2-active-adapters-at-4k-60-hz.html
noko
New member
I stand corrected if true, including 4,4,4 sampling which exceeds the base HDMI 2.0 standard. This is better then Nvidia 2.0 HDMI. HDCP has to be hardware, not firmware upgradable so this adaptor has to have that. Like to see some reviews. Price is very reasonable.
Come to think about it, with all the HDMI 2.0 UHDTV's out there, how will they ever get HDCP 2.2 content if they need HDMI 2.0a for this? I don't think folks would be too happy be told they need another UHDTV to see UHD Blu-Rays.
So HDMI 2.0a includes HDCP 2.2, 4:4:4 compliant plus 10bit, 12bit and HDR. While HDMI 2.0 can include some of the above, most important I think is HDCP 2.2 and 4:4:4. I hope this is cleared up in the end.
noko
New member
A gift came in from FedEx on Wednesday (that was super fast from the egg!)
Not much in the box, a disk (obsolete manuals, or cards before the Fiji line) and a installation guide which does not have a Nano example but should be good enough to figure things out for those doing this for the first time. This thing is smaller than I thought, compare it to the CD Rom. I have to say I have bought multiple PowerColor cards and everyone was pristinely packed, no finger prints, marks or blemishes; looks like a blemish free Porch paintjob.
The Nano will be moved into my HTPC rig temporarily until the other items are bought, a custom case designed and built for the Nano. Basically AMD FX 8350, 250gb Samsung Evo SSD with a 1TB Seagate Hard drive, Blu-Ray player, Radeon HD 7970 with ghz edition bios (works perfect) on an Asus motherboard inside a Silverstone case. Windows 10 Pro installed. The case has 3 120mm fans and 2 80mm fans - it is well ventilated and virtually whisper quiet.
Out with the old, in with the new. I also upgraded the ram to 16gb DDR 2400 but is running at 1866mhz since that is the max on this motherboard for default 200mhz fsb from the original 8gb 1600mhz installed. This DDR2400 ram did not work in my other Asus motherboard but seems to work fine in this one.
Here is a comparison of the Nano to the pulled 7970. The 7970 has moved into my #1 slot for longest lasting and viable video card of all time, it will be moved back into this case once the Nano moves out.
That's it for now, I have some results tabulated on the effects of raising the Power Limit with performance.
Last edited:
noko
New member
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 1)
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 1)
One of the first things I wanted to find out is the effects of changing the Power Limit in the drivers to see what the Nano did.
To get good data, empirical in nature so as to be able to compare, you need a constant type workload that is measured. Regardless of what some may think 3DMark can be a good tool to measure changes in settings and performance. While it can't predict a given game performance at least it gives good data that can be used to determine performance changes for a given workload, cpu or gpu.
You can see in the image Power Limit set at +25%, GPU clock +10% which in the meters above you can see the GPU speed. 3DMark also shows other items in the graph to the right, GPU temp.
This maybe interesting to some here, a detail view of a FireStrike Run graphs:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6618860
You can see GPU temp as time goes on, it looks to be still going up indicating maybe the Nano would throttle if the test was prolonged - something to check for in the future. Other options can be selected, very useful information is my point for a good study. Just playing games and putting one subjective viewpoint is not always as accurate. Plus give me one person that can play a given game, frap it and then duplicate the results consistently on the same setup - in cases like that you would need samples, like 50 play throughs to get accurate data. Not to say playing a game and looking for other things such as jitter, texture/shader issues etc. is not less important. To get a good feel, many tests should be done as much as possible.
So by looking at the above graphs, what was the average gpu clock on the game tests? I think it was a little above 900mhz. The Nano I believe is TDP limited but also limited by a power ceiling even if the temperature is low, until a temperature is reached which then also can limit the clock speed as well. Earlier you saw it at 1105mhz since that clock can be supported under a given TDP (Thermal Design Power).
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 1)
One of the first things I wanted to find out is the effects of changing the Power Limit in the drivers to see what the Nano did.
To get good data, empirical in nature so as to be able to compare, you need a constant type workload that is measured. Regardless of what some may think 3DMark can be a good tool to measure changes in settings and performance. While it can't predict a given game performance at least it gives good data that can be used to determine performance changes for a given workload, cpu or gpu.
You can see in the image Power Limit set at +25%, GPU clock +10% which in the meters above you can see the GPU speed. 3DMark also shows other items in the graph to the right, GPU temp.
This maybe interesting to some here, a detail view of a FireStrike Run graphs:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6618860
You can see GPU temp as time goes on, it looks to be still going up indicating maybe the Nano would throttle if the test was prolonged - something to check for in the future. Other options can be selected, very useful information is my point for a good study. Just playing games and putting one subjective viewpoint is not always as accurate. Plus give me one person that can play a given game, frap it and then duplicate the results consistently on the same setup - in cases like that you would need samples, like 50 play throughs to get accurate data. Not to say playing a game and looking for other things such as jitter, texture/shader issues etc. is not less important. To get a good feel, many tests should be done as much as possible.
So by looking at the above graphs, what was the average gpu clock on the game tests? I think it was a little above 900mhz. The Nano I believe is TDP limited but also limited by a power ceiling even if the temperature is low, until a temperature is reached which then also can limit the clock speed as well. Earlier you saw it at 1105mhz since that clock can be supported under a given TDP (Thermal Design Power).
Last edited:
noko
New member
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 2)
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 2)
I am probably boring a number of folks but here is what happened running 3DMark FireStrike Ultra, largest GPU load and changing the Power Limit.
Using Compare, a feature of the Online service of the three runs; the right column data is with the default Nano Power Limit, the middle with +15% and the left with +25%. You can see that changing the Power Limit affects performance.
When comparing two items you also get the percent differences:
Look like a 7-10% performance increase just by raising the Power Limit up to 25%. Would this be maintained with longer runs? Games?
Namo Power Limit Settings Affects (Part 2)
I am probably boring a number of folks but here is what happened running 3DMark FireStrike Ultra, largest GPU load and changing the Power Limit.
Using Compare, a feature of the Online service of the three runs; the right column data is with the default Nano Power Limit, the middle with +15% and the left with +25%. You can see that changing the Power Limit affects performance.
When comparing two items you also get the percent differences:
Look like a 7-10% performance increase just by raising the Power Limit up to 25%. Would this be maintained with longer runs? Games?
Last edited:
noko
New member
I had to redo the last two post pictures. Using Google Pictures to host. May just have to pay for a good hosting service.
Played about 3 hours of Dying Light. I had everything maxed out in the game and at 1080p - it was virtually locked at 60fps. Game looks and played awesomely.
Now my cpu cooler was not so awesome, stock AMD heapo cheapo on a Bulldozer processor, mini fusion plant (star), it got quite loud. The 7970 did not exhaust inside the case, the Nano does. the added heat is affecting CPU fan speed and noise in the end. As for the Nano it cannot be heard (kinda hard though when you have a turbo jet noise fan blowing on your cpu).
So actual game play brought out other weaknesses in the current setup. I have a small water cooler but this case really was not design for it, as big as it is. I might be able to squeeze it in on one of the supply fans on the left side by the power supply. May end up buying a better cooler for this case as I build my real Nano rig.
Played about 3 hours of Dying Light. I had everything maxed out in the game and at 1080p - it was virtually locked at 60fps. Game looks and played awesomely.
Now my cpu cooler was not so awesome, stock AMD heapo cheapo on a Bulldozer processor, mini fusion plant (star), it got quite loud. The 7970 did not exhaust inside the case, the Nano does. the added heat is affecting CPU fan speed and noise in the end. As for the Nano it cannot be heard (kinda hard though when you have a turbo jet noise fan blowing on your cpu).
So actual game play brought out other weaknesses in the current setup. I have a small water cooler but this case really was not design for it, as big as it is. I might be able to squeeze it in on one of the supply fans on the left side by the power supply. May end up buying a better cooler for this case as I build my real Nano rig.
noko
New member
Failed AIO water cooler installation
Failed AIO water cooler installation
Shifted images from Google + Photo to Postimage.org (free). Seems they will not disappear like on Google.
Anyways I tried to install CPU AIO water cooler, I got it to fit barely (very tight) but then found out that I did not have the AMD pump retaining ring. So I had to reassemble back using the old AMD cpu cooler. I did dress up the wiring, cleaned all the filters so the air flow is better.
Next message I have some stock and OC results.
Failed AIO water cooler installation
Shifted images from Google + Photo to Postimage.org (free). Seems they will not disappear like on Google.
Anyways I tried to install CPU AIO water cooler, I got it to fit barely (very tight) but then found out that I did not have the AMD pump retaining ring. So I had to reassemble back using the old AMD cpu cooler. I did dress up the wiring, cleaned all the filters so the air flow is better.
Next message I have some stock and OC results.
Last edited:
noko
New member
OCing the Nano, dynamic benchmark review
OCing the Nano, dynamic benchmark review
I may have gotten the Nano lottery on the GPU, anyways you can decide. Could be the limited test done.
Two video's below; first one is stock Nano running Thief in a loop on the desktop with a 800x600 window (Edit: resolution is actually higher than 800x600, not sure the exact resolution here but telling my the window size on a 1080P screen it is more in the 1200x800 range)
Edit: Looks like to view 1080p video, open YouTube.
[yt]UdJToI_zQmg[/yt]
2nd video shows OC, same settings on Thief Nano.
From this, initial impression is keeping the Nano cool can have a big impact on performance.
OCing the Nano, dynamic benchmark review
I may have gotten the Nano lottery on the GPU, anyways you can decide. Could be the limited test done.
Two video's below; first one is stock Nano running Thief in a loop on the desktop with a 800x600 window (Edit: resolution is actually higher than 800x600, not sure the exact resolution here but telling my the window size on a 1080P screen it is more in the 1200x800 range)
- Max in game settings using 4x SSAA (which should be 3200x2400 rendering for the Nano).
- Using Mantle since it loads all eight cores of the FX8350 and has much better performance with this CPU then the DX11 version.
- Open is Radeon Settings Overdrive showing GPU speed, temperature, fan speed etc.
- Also task manager showing CPU usage. I ran the benchmark over and over again to about an equilibrium temperature on the GPU.
Edit: Looks like to view 1080p video, open YouTube.
[yt]UdJToI_zQmg[/yt]
2nd video shows OC, same settings on Thief Nano.
- One difference is computer has an air conditioner blowing on the case, the side with two 120mm intake fans.
- Look at the OC achieved (no volt mod), Temperature and fan speed with just this simple modification.
- Basically benchmark is started, then the Power Limit and GPU Clock is set which you will see (please note there is no mouse pointer, values will change in Radeon settings)
From this, initial impression is keeping the Nano cool can have a big impact on performance.
Last edited: