Skip to main content

First R9 Nano Water Block Announced, Available Next Week

AMD's Radeon R9 Nano (our full review here) has only been available for a day, but there's already a water cooling solution on the way. Aqua Computer, based in Germany, has announced a full cover, single-slot water block for the pint-sized flagship.

During the press briefing for the R9 Nano, AMD made a point to mention that the company had been working with water cooling vendors to build solutions for the upcoming graphics card. Now that the Nano has been released, the first water block has also been revealed. Aqua Computer, a water block manufacturer based in Germany, is the first to announce a solution for the Nano.

The kyrographics R9 Nano block is a single slot solution made of pure electrolytic copper, and milled with a CNC machine using AMD's 3D schematics of the Nano PCB. It is a full-cover block that has active cooling for the VRMs, which the company said make contact with the block through thermal pads, while the GPU and HMB memory use thermal paste. Aqua Computer said it was able to keep the GPU temperature below 35 degrees while running at extreme load in Furmark.

Aqua Computer will offer two versions of the kryographics R9 Nano block: a windowed block with a machined Plexiglass cover to show the fluid passing through, and a closed block with a brushed aluminum cover. For single slot configuration, the company already offers a replacement I/O bracket.

Aqua Computer said the blocks will be available to order next week, but the prices have not been revealed.

Follow Kevin Carbotte @pumcypuhoy. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

  • jimmysmitty
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    Don't say anything! Just bring on you money and smile ;-)
    Nano is nice and interesting niche product and this something for even smaller user base. But this has some meaning. In 2016 both companies (AMD and Nvidia) will bring out new devices in 14 to 16nm with HBM2 and we will see more small factor graphic cards. In that situation it may be possible that water cooled variations of those can have market, so this is a prototype of what is coming next year maybe in bigger scale!
    But at this moment... don't say anything and enjoy the show!
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.
    Reply
  • norseman4
    There are 3rd party water-blocks for the Fury X as well, and both convert the card to a svelte single slot.

    In any event, watercooling isn't a mainstream endeavor and some people will not get a video card unless they can custom-loop it. Eh, some of the results look really good, and their performance is a bit better, but it's not for me at this time.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    16611797 said:
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.

    How exactally would the exact same GPU die manage a better overclock than the other? According to AMD that water block on the Fury X should be able to handle two Fury X GPUs.

    Either way it is the oddest thing to do. But still that is up to that user to decide if they feel it is worth spending the extra money of all the parts, a decent rad + Pump + this block would probably push to about $200, on top of the GPU.

    If the Nano was priced lower it wouldn't be so bad but because it is priced the same as the Fury X it just makes no sense to buy it. And this doesn't fit the "niche" market with a water block. Most cases that would support a custom loop for your GPU would also support a full sized GPU.
    Reply
  • Rhinofart
    I love the AuquaComputer Heatsinks. I have one for my 290x. Almost as heavy as my 10 year old kid, but looks awesome, and performs fantastically. Heatkiller GPU X3
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    16612048 said:
    16611797 said:
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.

    How exactally would the exact same GPU die manage a better overclock than the other? According to AMD that water block on the Fury X should be able to handle two Fury X GPUs.

    Either way it is the oddest thing to do. But still that is up to that user to decide if they feel it is worth spending the extra money of all the parts, a decent rad + Pump + this block would probably push to about $200, on top of the GPU.

    If the Nano was priced lower it wouldn't be so bad but because it is priced the same as the Fury X it just makes no sense to buy it. And this doesn't fit the "niche" market with a water block. Most cases that would support a custom loop for your GPU would also support a full sized GPU.


    That was a little too vague.
    meant to say it will overclock better witht he waterblock than it would with just the stock cooler.

    even with the waterblock, the Nano draws less power than a Fury X.

    Like I said, this is a niche product. It's not going to make sense for a lot of poeple, and the water blocks are going to be even less popular.

    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    16612145 said:
    16612048 said:
    16611797 said:
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.

    How exactally would the exact same GPU die manage a better overclock than the other? According to AMD that water block on the Fury X should be able to handle two Fury X GPUs.

    Either way it is the oddest thing to do. But still that is up to that user to decide if they feel it is worth spending the extra money of all the parts, a decent rad + Pump + this block would probably push to about $200, on top of the GPU.

    If the Nano was priced lower it wouldn't be so bad but because it is priced the same as the Fury X it just makes no sense to buy it. And this doesn't fit the "niche" market with a water block. Most cases that would support a custom loop for your GPU would also support a full sized GPU.


    That was a little too vague.
    meant to say it will overclock better witht he waterblock than it would with just the stock cooler.

    even with the waterblock, the Nano draws less power than a Fury X.

    Like I said, this is a niche product. It's not going to make sense for a lot of poeple, and the water blocks are going to be even less popular.

    We have no numbers to support the idea that Nano will draw less power than Fury X if it was set to the same clock speed and power limits. I don't see how since it is essentially the same GPU. Power Tune is built into the drivers so even a Fury X could benefit from it. In fact both support TFR so it can keep the clock lower to stay at say 60FPS.

    We would have to wait and see numbers from a independent review before we would be able to tell.

    And yes, it would use less power if you kept the same thermal limits but why would you keep the same thermal limits on water cooling?
    Reply
  • kcarbotte
    16612194 said:
    16612145 said:
    16612048 said:
    16611797 said:
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.

    How exactally would the exact same GPU die manage a better overclock than the other? According to AMD that water block on the Fury X should be able to handle two Fury X GPUs.

    Either way it is the oddest thing to do. But still that is up to that user to decide if they feel it is worth spending the extra money of all the parts, a decent rad + Pump + this block would probably push to about $200, on top of the GPU.

    If the Nano was priced lower it wouldn't be so bad but because it is priced the same as the Fury X it just makes no sense to buy it. And this doesn't fit the "niche" market with a water block. Most cases that would support a custom loop for your GPU would also support a full sized GPU.


    That was a little too vague.
    meant to say it will overclock better witht he waterblock than it would with just the stock cooler.

    even with the waterblock, the Nano draws less power than a Fury X.

    Like I said, this is a niche product. It's not going to make sense for a lot of poeple, and the water blocks are going to be even less popular.

    We have no numbers to support the idea that Nano will draw less power than Fury X if it was set to the same clock speed and power limits. I don't see how since it is essentially the same GPU. Power Tune is built into the drivers so even a Fury X could benefit from it. In fact both support TFR so it can keep the clock lower to stay at say 60FPS.

    We would have to wait and see numbers from a independent review before we would be able to tell.

    And yes, it would use less power if you kept the same thermal limits but why would you keep the same thermal limits on water cooling?


    The single 8-pin PCI-e connector is the limiting factor.
    Even with all the power limitations pulled back, this card is still limited to 250w power draw.



    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    16612224 said:
    16612194 said:
    16612145 said:
    16612048 said:
    16611797 said:
    16611559 said:
    So buy a Nano for the price of a Fury X then turn it into a Fury X with a water block turning it into probably a $750+ GPU...

    I am not sure what to say really.

    Its still shorter, and it should manage a better overclock.
    This card is meant for a very specific niche market.

    How exactally would the exact same GPU die manage a better overclock than the other? According to AMD that water block on the Fury X should be able to handle two Fury X GPUs.

    Either way it is the oddest thing to do. But still that is up to that user to decide if they feel it is worth spending the extra money of all the parts, a decent rad + Pump + this block would probably push to about $200, on top of the GPU.

    If the Nano was priced lower it wouldn't be so bad but because it is priced the same as the Fury X it just makes no sense to buy it. And this doesn't fit the "niche" market with a water block. Most cases that would support a custom loop for your GPU would also support a full sized GPU.


    That was a little too vague.
    meant to say it will overclock better witht he waterblock than it would with just the stock cooler.

    even with the waterblock, the Nano draws less power than a Fury X.

    Like I said, this is a niche product. It's not going to make sense for a lot of poeple, and the water blocks are going to be even less popular.

    We have no numbers to support the idea that Nano will draw less power than Fury X if it was set to the same clock speed and power limits. I don't see how since it is essentially the same GPU. Power Tune is built into the drivers so even a Fury X could benefit from it. In fact both support TFR so it can keep the clock lower to stay at say 60FPS.

    We would have to wait and see numbers from a independent review before we would be able to tell.

    And yes, it would use less power if you kept the same thermal limits but why would you keep the same thermal limits on water cooling?


    The single 8-pin PCI-e connector is the limiting factor.
    Even with all the power limitations pulled back, this card is still limited to 250w power draw.



    Then it would be impossible to get the same performance numbers, no? If it cannot pull the same power then it cannot push the same performance unless Fury X is capable of a much lower power draw.
    Reply