AMD’s R9 Nano Just Got More Interesting With Big Price Drop

News
By Kevin Carbotte
published

AMD launched its Mini-ITX sized R9 Nano graphics card (review here) back in September. Within the six-inch long package you’ll find the same GPU core found in the company’s flagship Fury X graphics card; the Nano is limited only in power consumption. For that reason, and due to limited yields, AMD chose to launch the card at the same price tag as the flagship part, much to the dismay of many people wanting to get their hands on a Fiji-based GPU at a discounted rate.

The Nano proved to be a very powerful part, but there was criticism of the price tag. It seems AMD has heard the feedback and has taken action. As of today, AMD has slashed the cost of the R9 Nano in a dramatic gesture.

Going forward, the MSRP for AMD’s Mini-ITX powerhouse card will be $499. That’s a $150 discount from the launch price, which makes the Nano the cheapest Fiji card on the market. It's a somewhat surprising move for a card that has no direct competitor, but this can only be good for the customer. At $499, the Nano will be in the sights of a whole new class of buyer.

Follow Kevin Carbotte @pumcypuhoy. Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Kevin Carbotte

 Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years. 

See more GPUs News
34 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Gam3r01
    Well at 1080p and 1440p this card (both in price and performance now) places right at or around the 980.
    With this price drop, at 4k the 390x is a whole 100 dollars cheaper for 10% less performance.
    This card is in a very odd place (taking into consideration small form factors)
    Reply
  • quilciri
    It's in a better place (no I don't mean it like that). It's still niche for Mini ITX builds, but now SFF builders are only charged a small premium for the size.

    If the 970 didn't come in fun size, this would be a no-brainer for your tiny-as-possible living room Occulus rig.

    p.s. Can we get some Gsync/freesync support for HMD's and TV's?
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    17302379 said:
    Well at 1080p and 1440p this card (both in price and performance now) places right at or around the 980.
    With this price drop, at 4k the 390x is a whole 100 dollars cheaper for 10% less performance.
    This card is in a very odd place (taking into consideration small form factors)

    You aren't considering power draw though.
    The Nano's peak draw is 175w, which is a lot less than both of the options you just named.
    It is still a niche product, but it caters to a group that very much exists.
    Reply
  • BulkZerker
    The nano is still a strange part. But Tue price drop almost negates the cost of a water block.
    Reply
  • Blas
    Does anybody know how this card performs when liquid-cooled? I understand it's main disadvantage compared to the full-blown Fury X is the power circuitry, but maybe watercooling it can help get Fury X performance at some $150 less?
    Reply
  • SteelCity1981
    not a shocker to see this price drop since their next gen gpus are about to hit the market.
    Reply
  • Blas
    (Sorry for the repeated posts, my bad!)
    Reply
  • littleleo
    I don't think AMD needed to cut the price that much, however it is a positive for consumers. It takes a card in the $620+ range down to the $450 range. This puts some pressure on Nividia, since at that price it may start ending up in regular desktop rigs not just mini builds.
    Reply
  • iPanda
    So... if I don't overclock this card, it would be just fine in a normal rig. doesn't seem to have a big power draw so how it won't overheat much then right? Just trying to keep my options open for a midtower/fulltower build soon. Always stuck with Nvidia but perhaps I should chop that up for one PC.
    Reply
  • ammaross
    The nano is still a strange part. But Tue price drop almost negates the cost of a water block.
    Slap a ID Cooler Hunter Duet in a rig with this guy. :D
    Reply