Nano also in Malaysia already, nope not with me. I only have R9 390 and R9 295X2. Fury X no longer with me.

Nano is a product full of potential but plagued with 2 major problems
1. price
2. availability

i think it should be LOW?

in any case, paying Fury X price for something that performs like a 390X.

if one is looking for performance then it's horrible. if your purchase is to factor in the size then it's different.

R9 390 8GB performs close, and can outrun GTX 980 on some tests.

Want performance? get 2x R9 390 8GB CFX!!!

It'll be super power hog of course but that's quite some performance for RM 2.8k or so.

Why would it not be Power Efficiency?

It's a matter of # of power used to deliver X performance.

You must understand the term 'EFFICIENCY'.

EFFICIENCY in any situation is always calculated based on what is used and what you get.

For example

CARS : how many KM you get per LITRE or petrol = Fuel Efficiency, meaning how efficient is the fuel used.

WORK : how much work you done per hour = Work Efficiency, meaning how well time is used to get things done. This is often used to judge human, for example a factory worker on how many packets of product one can make within an hour.

Same in graphics card, EFFICIENCY refers to POWER CONSUMED to PERFORMANCE delivered aka Performance Per Watt.

EFFICIENCY is always calculated against 2 factors, if you solely based on energy consumption alone then there's nothing to talk about efficiency.

There IS a reason why AMD called the R9 NANO the most power efficient MINI ITX card.



You may refer to AMD's slides if you haven't http://www.goldfries.com/tech-news/introdu...-radeon-r9-nano

AMD compared the R9 NANO that's a 175w card against a GTX 970 which is a 145w card, claiming it has 30% performance gain while consume only 20% more power.

as per my example above.

I guess when it come to car you call it "KM travelled per LITRE petrol ratio" instead of "Fuel efficiency" as well?

Sorry, I re-read again what you posted, finally I think I get what you're coming from.

I think what you said is correct.

The reason why people say one card is more "power efficient" over another is based on comparison between cards, as in one card has better power efficiency over the other.

This power efficiency matter is derived from performance to watt ratio.

Come to think of it terminology itself is quite interchangably used.

I think Fuel Consumption is correct too, some people use Fuel Economy. Others use Fuel Efficiency.

Did a quick search and found something like this http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what%E2%80%...nd-fuel-economy

The terms are quite interchangably used.

Found something more interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency



In the case of this discussion on the point you highlighted, performance to watt ratio looks more like "Watt economy" where frame rate acquired per unit volume of power used. Instead of KM/L it becomes FRAME/Watt.



Heck I didn't know there's a difference between Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy, and your Fuel Consumption is Fuel Economy.

Might not be enough unless you get the variant with 8GB RAM.

Going 4K, anything with 4GB VRAM will be memory starved on some titles.

Can barely drive games, that also depending on title and settings.

Heck I can play League of Legends using A10-7850K IGP on 4K too but I had to tune down to almost lowest settings and still couldn't get 60 fps.

I plan to have R9 390 8GB CFX la. Imagine 16GB RAM goodness.

I have the Hexa 550. I will try out the R9 390 on it soon then. I've personally used R9 280X on Hexa 500 before and

1. it works.
2. it doesn't breakdown UNLESS i run it for long hours at full load, of which I did, of which it powered down.

Based on my test, the PowerColor R9 390 8GB on full load (Furmark, which pushes more load than usual) shows wall draw of 366W on my 90% efficiency FSP Aurum S 700W PSU so that comes to about 270W on full load.

Will put the 2 together and give it a run once the R9 390 comes back to my lab.

GTX 950 is certainly more than enough for LOL.

I play LOL on R7 250 1GB D5 and it's 200 fps on Full HD with full details.

I could even play it on my AMD A10-7850K APU IGP.

The old R9 280X is the HD 7970 Ghz Ed.

the HD 7850 by today's standard is the R7 370, which is also the R7 265 from previous generation.

All of them having the GPU codename is "Pitcairn" and all of them having 1024 shaders.

If you can find an R9 270 / R9 270X card, they'll be faster - more shaders, and they're cheaper too. I saw it on Compu-Zone's price list.

Sometimes I don't know whether it's you guys or the manufacturers, I'd like to pin to the latter though.

In some cases I have cards of same model that works for one and not the other, or various models from same manufacturer but some work and some don't.

Like when I reviewed the new range of R9 - I have some Sapphire models like the R9 390X and R9 390 that refuses to work and I spent days troubleshooting.

Baking is pretty much like leaving it under the sun, very different from what microwave is.

Should be getting my copy of Crimson soon.

Under NDA until November 25. That one I can tell you.

Nothing wrong with letting people know NDA date mah.

But seriously la, NDA date useless wan.

I honor NDA date but you see other sites, guarantee you before NDA lifted news sure out.

1. Finished the game.
2. Fury X not going to make it better. I'm using GTX 960 also super duper fast already.