Home / Component / Graphics / Pricing and launch date of AMD Radeon R9 Nano leaked

Pricing and launch date of AMD Radeon R9 Nano leaked

Specifications and capabilities of AMD’s upcoming Radeon R9 Nano graphics card have been largely known for quite some time now. The new graphics adapter will be the highest-performing mini-ITX add-in board ever built and will be among the fastest graphics cards available today. According to a new leak, the product will not be too expensive.

AMD’s partners will start to sell the Radeon R9 Nano graphics card on the 10th of September, 2015. The manufacturer suggested retail price of the Radeon R9 Nano will be similar to that of the Radeon R9 Fury X: $649 in the U.S., £509 in the U.K. and €629 in Eurozone, according to WccfTech, which cites AMD’s documents and sources close to the company.

amd_radeon_fury_nano

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano will be built by a contract manufacturer under supervision of Advanced Micro Devices and sold to partners as card, not as a graphics processing unit. Only three months later some manufacturers of graphics boards may be granted rights to build their own Radeon R9 Nano graphics adapters.

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano graphics card for mini-ITX personal computers is powered by AMD’s “Fiji” graphics processing unit with 4096 stream processors, 256 texture mapping units, 64 raster operations pipelines and 4096-bit memory interface. The Radeon R9 Nano will have compute performance of around 8.2TFLOPS, which is only 5 per cent below that of the Radeon R9 Fury X. Just like the flagship graphics solution from AMD, the miniature graphics adapter carries 4GB of HBM [high-bandwidth memory] operating at 1000MHz.

amd_radeon_fury_nano_1

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano will be the fastest graphics adapter for small form-factor systems ever designed. Its performance will be comparable to that of AMD’s Radeon R9 Fury X and Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 980 Ti. It is unlikely that the Radeon R9 Nano will get a strong rival in its category any time soon.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Keeping in mind that the AMD Radeon R9 Nano graphics card is unique, its $649/£509 price tag does not seem to be excessive. What remains to be seen is whether AMD will be able to satisfy demand for the miniature graphics adapter. In fact, it is easier to build the flagship AMD Radeon R9 Fury X than the Radeon R9 Nano. For the for former, AMD needs to get one “Fiji” chip with 4096 stream processors, but for the latter the company needs a GPU with 4096 SPs, low power consumption and low heat dissipation, a combination that may be hard to find.

Become a Patron!

Check Also

Linux 6.11 is getting support for discrete Intel Battlemage GPUs

Intel's open-source Linux graphics driver developers are making significant strides in preparing for the release …

16 comments

  1. RoFL at the prices people were suggesting upon reveal.

  2. Ha. Well why on earth would I get that when I can get a 980Ti for the same price?! AMD haven’t a clue as to what they are doing – there isn’t a market that’ll pay so much for a card that isn’t the best in it’s price category.

  3. Because there may be a case size restriction.. Small form factor machines with high end capabilities, yes, there is a market.

  4. Very over-priced, but I’m guessing that’s the point if they can’t get the cards into stock…

  5. In every where people know that you can’t make something from nothing , so the same chip with same memory (HBM) and almost the same performance for 2/3 power consumption and less heat generation. some thing wrong. but let us wait and see.

  6. There is no official price yet, I don’t know why people already say that this is over-priced(or very over-priced)

  7. Such a user won’t exist. Good mini itx cases like those made by bit fenix can take larger cards whereas those limited to mini itx cards tend to have bad airflow meaning such a pc most likely won’t need the power of a fury nano. It’s a traditional case of bad management- make a product, then find the market, when it should be making a product for a known market.

  8. Why get an R9 Nano instead of a 980ti? Maybe because it uses less power to achieve practically the same performance if not better, people have to pay electricity bills too so I’m sure the R9 Nano will sell fairly well among people who want maximum performance without the added electricity costs, Not to mention many people don’t want to waste a money on getting a higher wattage PSU if it’s needed for a monster graphics and the R9 Nano eliminates that problem.

    What the 980ti got that the R9 Nano doesn’t? 2gbs more memory because it’s using the slow GDDR5 so it’s needed and it has a higher pixel rate, that’s pretty much it, so worth the money over the R9 Nano.

    R9 Nano compute performance = 8.19 Tflops
    980ti Compute performance = 5.63 Tflops

    There’s an easier way to explain it to you

    The R9 Nano isn’t solely for a mini-ITX albeit being the cards target design market.
    Next time do your homework before you slander GPU’s because you obviously don’t realise that the 900 series are just re-hashes of the 700 series much like AMDs R 300 are re-hashes of the R 200 series basically graphics cores that have been around for ages only sligtly improved with a tacked on new name, the Nano, Fury and Fury X have completely new GPU chips

  9. It’s been confirmed at $649. AMD is in for more marketshare decline.

  10. if the nano,fury and fury x are completely new gpu chips then AMD has failed harder than i thought. Cause not only are they new architectures but they also include new faster memory type and only achieved ~20% increase from previous gen while Nvidia has gotten ~25% increase with refining their old one with old tech. Nvidia’s pascal is looking to be a beast next year and AMD’s lies is finally gonna put the nail in the coffin when their market share drops below 15% this year.

  11. So you think the nano will have more performance than the fury x? What is that assumption based on? Aftermarket 980tis hammer the fury x and real world performance far outweighs the largely meaningless compute performance. If you’re spending £500+ on a gpu, you won’t care about power bills as both are efficient cards and the cost will be negligible. Again this points toward a card that just doesn’t have a market but just sounded like a good idea on paper. Also do your trolling elsewhere- the maxwell architecture is new for the 900 series and wasn’t in the 700 series unlike the rebrands that the 300 series for amd is. Rant somewhere else and come back when you’ve gotten your facts sorted.

  12. “Confirmed” by WCCF.

    I want to see a much more reputable source confirm that before I’ll believe it. WCCF is clickbait garbage.

  13. Heres Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9564/amd-announces-radeon-r9-nano-shipping-september-10th

  14. Also Tomshardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-r9-nano-details-revealed,29935.html

  15. Yeah, pcper has it too. So long as they’re not citing WCCF as their source, I’m satisfied.

    Few things bother me more than a reputable tech news site citing WCCF as their source material. Even citing Fudzilla is better than WCCF, and in the past I’ve personally demonstrated how Fuad literally makes stuff up and writes his stories as if they were fact.

    WCCF is the swamp-ass of the tech world.

  16. Matthew Thompson

    wtf