Nano is back. Single 8 pin. Looks like an 85mm fan again. I

>>61660537
Nano what? RX580? what model? What a low quality post ffs.

>>61660589
That's the Vega logo scheme so probably some cut down low end vega

>>61660589
Its Vega.

>>61660600
Full fledged Vega64, exactly like the Fury Nano. Just lower clocks and lower sustained boost to bring down the power target.

>>61660589
ur retarded

>400 watts
>one fan

Ok

>>61660824
>le 400 watts maymay

>>61660844
No this chip actually will draw 400 watts at max clocks.

>>61660877
Faggot here, why should I care about tdp except for the fact that it means there's less room for overclocking? I'm retarded and don't get the meme

>>61660952
It's performance you're paying for and willfully discarding for some unknown reason.

>>61660995
>Performance from your power supply
ftfy

>>61660537
I just hope it won't cost $600 again.

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

>>61661034
Why wouldn't it? It's a niche.

>>61661034
It probably will be around that $500 to $550 point.
Its a full Vega64 just clocked lower, and the small form factor itself is a niche gimmick.

>>61660824
Not even the watercooled Vega is 400 watts you stupid dipshit.

>>61660995
t.retard

>>61660995
So you don't know why tdp is important either, cool.

File: 1478618055305.png (72KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 645x773px

>>61661431
#pwned

>>61660537
>overlapping fans
dumb meme design with less fin area

>>61660877
>>61660952
>power consumption and tdp is the same thing
you're both retarded

>>61660824
It's 150 watts for GPU+VRAM on the Vega Nano.

The Fury Nano's weren't half bad once they were massively cut down in price

I suspect this will have the same fate

>>61661714
It's not a dumb meme.
Though one deep fan might be better. It's also too thin.

In the Aorus case it's stupid because there is so much wasted space that's just shroud where they could have used 2 120mm fans instead of 3 100mm.

In the Nano's case, it makes sense because they can't do a higher diameter fan as it's already roughly to the edges of the PCI depth that they're trying to stick under.
Fact is that the previous Nano got noisy under full load.
Hopefully this time they improved the fan and heatsink design, because it's only like 10-15 watts lower power than the Fury Nano.

>>61662073
Yeah, at $450 the Nano were alright. At $650 no way.

But it looks like they will be over $500 this time... If it was $450 i'd buy it, but obviously isn't since the Vega 56 is $400.

>>61660589
vega.
you can't make a card small enough with gddr5 all around.
this is probably the best amd card that is not retarded.

>>61660537
I liked the minimalist brushed alumininum brick design on the normal version but this just looks retarded. Still cool stuff.

>>61660877
full fledged vega fe with watercooling on max oc draws 400 watts
idiots on /g/ says a card with lower clocks a lower cooling solution and lower overhead will draw also 400 watts

sometimes i think i just want to be barry allen to fuck up the timelines and just kill some mothers so that idiots like those never to be born

File: 1501249785466.jpg (120KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 768x1024px

CUTE

>>61660537
>I was hoping for dual fans that overlap partially (like on the 1080 Aorus)
The only reason they can do it on the Aorus is because it's 3 slots thick. Try it on a dual slot card like the Nano and you're left with no room for the heatsink.

>>61663825
You could do 400watts on a 1080 as well if Nvidia unclocked the voltage.
whats ur point?

>>61663898
The fans on nano are pretty thin, is the thing.
or what if they had intersecting fans like a chinook? HMMM

>>61663913
shills always shills thats the point

they dont even have a decent iq to be at least decent on shillng let alone smart

>>61660824
One 8 pin puts the max power draw at 225W (150W from the 8 pin + 75W from the slot).

>>61663947
how dare you come here with technical knowledge and even more dare to share it with us!

>>61660537
Cute!

>>61663913
There's only 30~32mm to work with. You're not going to be able to stack two 10mm thick fans and a useful heatsink in that space.

Intersecting fans would require that they be geared together, which would add a lot of extra noise and complexity.

C U T E

>>61664013
Belts are quiet.

>>61664761
It'd have to be a toothed belt to maintain the blade spacing.

In theory it might work. I'm not sure the gains over a single, larger diameter fan would be worth it, though.

>>61665012
Again: The problem is that you're limited to 85mm if you don't want to exceed the standard PCI height.

Hmm, where in the power spectrum would a 150w vega nano be?

GTX 1030, GTX 1050? Somewhere around that, right?

>>61666322
turbo brainlet.

>>61666397
I'm merely abstracting the 450-500w vega cards down to a 150w tdp.

File: r9_nano_breakout_rgb_5inch.png (4MB, 2621x1500px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2621x1500px

>>61666267
Okay, fair enough.

There's still the question of whether the trade offs would be worth it though. Consider that the R9 Nano had part of the heatsink cut out for the fan (see pic). With dual fans, you'd be losing some of the heatsink in exchange for the second fan. There's also the space taken up by the torque transfer belt, and its own potential to block some airflow.

Also, the fans would likely need to have fewer blades and different blade geometry (straighter) to allow enough room for the enmeshed blades not to collide. That would have some impact on fan performance.

The proximity of the fan blades to eachother might generate extra noise, as well.

>85mm
Enjoy your tiny jet engine. Maybe when someone designs a kawaii liquid cooler block like they did for the Nano it will be a viable card.

File: R9 nano 92mm fan mod.jpg (221KB, 1536x1152px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1536x1152px

>>61666784
It's essentially a 92mm fan with the frame removed. It was possible on the R9 Nano to mod in a regular slim 92mm Noctua fan to achieve lower noise.

>>61666864
Yeah but won't you end up with an inferno of a card? I'd rather wait for a waterblock

>>61666894
The guy whose pic that is says the card hits 75C under full load after the mod. So not bad at all.

Now imagine 4 of these on a single interposer.

It's going to make Intels bingbus mesh look like a tropical climate next to the hellish rebuke AMD is about to try and sell people.

>>61662068
>150 watts
jesus

>>61662193
2x120mm fans would put it over 9.5 inches, which is well outside itx territory

Caselets love these things

>>61666982
t. brazilian monkey

What's the performance like?

>>61660537
Nanos are neat in theory, but virtually anyone would be better off just buying a full size triple fan card and lowering the voltages and power profile.

Less cost, same power, just quieter and/or cooler.

File: Nvidia-vs-Poojet.jpg (111KB, 700x544px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 700x544px

>>61660537
This is some serious shitty industrial design.
It looks even worse than vega fe/rx

>>61660589
Its a RX 620 now packing GDDR3 memory at a stunning 200W TDP.

>>61667621
someone seriously finds these nvidia ufo designs good?

>>61667675
well at least its designed, and not an aluminium brick

>>61667001
I was saying on the Aorus 1080. Which yes, is not an ITX card. It has 3 100mm fans when 2 120 mm would probably fit and be better. Or 115mm maybe.

>>61667724
Vega design is sexy. Everyone is sick of over designed shit.

File: banner1.png (20KB, 650x310px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 650x310px

oh, another nano...

>>61666982
Of course an MCM GPU wouldn't use a full sized die if you were to place four of them on a single interposer. That would defeat the entire purpose. If each one used 55 watts each, you'd still end up with reasonable 220 watts. Or you could have two at 110 watts each.

>>61666864
>>61666941
so much work.
i would just zip tie the fan in front of the hole.
sticking out.

File: NVIDIA_GeForce_GTX_980_3Qtr.png (3MB, 2000x1578px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1578px

>>61667621
>10 series reference coolers
>don't look like shit
The 700 and 900 series we're the best looking that nvidia made.

>>61667621
>lets put some plastic here so they can see the aluminum heatsink!

File: 6.png (219KB, 347x429px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 347x429px

>>61664761
>>61665012
Wrapping a belt around them makes them both spin in the same direction i.e the blades are flying in the opposing directions at the point where they "intermesh", retards.

>>61660662
>Full fledged Vega64, exactly like the Fury Nano. Just lower clocks and lower sustained boost to bring down the power target.
Not just that. Nano's pcb was optimized for lower power. Board power represents like a good 1/3 of gpu power consumption usually

>>61670739
Not if you add an extra pulley so the outside of the belt runs along the other gear. Car pulleys do this all the time.
Retard.

>>61670757
I wish I understood this better. Apparently Hawaii was rather power efficient for the GPU itself, but the rest of the board used a lot. Why do Nvidia boards use so much less since Maxwell?
Why don't they make all the boards use less power like Nano?

Since the GPU+VRAM on the new Nano is 150watt, the board/aux/fan must be 25watts or less.

File: 1501213257077.jpg (7KB, 239x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 239x250px

Thank god! But why is the 8pin connector not like the old nano?

File: 2.jpg (53KB, 312x486px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 312x486px

>>61670893
On wow, so now it's a belt that is toothed on both sides. What next, super sparsely spaced blades with an unique snowflake geometry?

>Car pulleys do this all the time.
Powered devices are all on the wuw side of the belt

>>61670971
I was also questioning this. Really makes no sense.

Especially why go through the effort to fit the PCI height if your connector will extend past it?

Could have made it 15mm taller and fit a 100mm fan instead with a front connector.

File: 1501286822636.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>61671109
You think you can stop me from raping here you cunts?

desu I'd prefer a shortish pcb from a full powered card with custom block on it

>>61670757
>. Board power represents like a good 1/3 of gpu power consumption usually

Where on earth did you ever hear this? The power phases and VRM controller itself have only marginal losses. The power consumption of a card will always be a product of the ASIC itself, and the memory feeding it.

There is nothing on a board that is magically pissing away electrons.

>>61663947
So it's a low cost neutered vega.

>>61673123
>nano
>low cost

it will go for 550-650 to sell to stupid mitx fags.

>>61673123
Honestly it's probably the originally intended specs for the card before they upped the clocks to compete with the 1080. You can tell it wasn't meant to run at such high clocks by the fact the TDP is so fucking high.

>>61673123
>>61673134
Probably cost more because it'll be a binned chip that runs at a lower voltage. Maybe.

File: 1501296840311.jpg (25KB, 462x587px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 462x587px

>>61670619
Did they really slap on transparent plastic?

>>61667675
>He dont pickup design that reduced your GPUs radar crossover.
Whats wrong whit you?

>>61667621
The Pascal stock cooler looks like absolute shit. Only a dumb gaymer retard would think that looks good.

>>61675795
That dumb gaymer retard spam posted his retarded photoshop into every fucking Vega thread on the board.

>>61660824
>>61662068
>>61666990
In addition since it's the same silicon any Vega chip could be just as efficient with an undervolt.

>>61675939
GPU+VRAM wise, yes, but the board/AUX/fans will use more power (unless it has a feature to turn off all but 1 fan and the heatsink is equally good)

Buildzoid goes over this on his breakdowns sometimes. Hawaii was actually quite officient. Polaris is pretty efficient too. The boards were just less efficient and had lots of wasted power.