GPU VEGA NANO

Lupercal

Caliper Novice
Sep 14, 2017
32
39
Short version: HDPLEX fine, Fury Nano (and likely Vega Nano, as Vega and Fury are extremely similar) have issues with laptop bricks.
Long version: here.
My HP Omen X 330w brick has been powering my Nano just fine. While messing with clocks, my kill a watt even showed peaks of 415w.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinoPecorino

hyp36rmax

Trash Compacter
May 7, 2018
43
60
My HP Omen X 330w brick has been powering my Nano just fine. While messing with clocks, my kill a watt even showed peaks of 415w.

Can you try running 3DMark Firestrike, Timespy, Unigine Superposition, and few graphic extensive titles? What resolution are you playing at?
 

rusty815

Caliper Novice
Jun 22, 2018
23
31
Vega cards sometimes run into trouble even with some pretty strong PSU. My Vega 64 regularly reboots when 4K gaming with the most powerful SFX-L PSU people can buy. Similar problems can even happen on systems with 1000+w PSU.

As stated previously, there is almost definitely something else wrong that is not the graphics card. I have 4 vega cards running in 4 different setups for myself, friends and family, one (my own) is a vega 64 reference card running on a 600w 80+ gold sfx psu, never had any shutdowns or reboots due to power draw. the other three vegas that I helped put together in builds are all running with 850w Focus Plus Gold power supplies, two are 64's and one is a vega frontier and none have ever shut down due to power draw.

The vega nano, in comparison to the systems that I run, should draw significantly less power than any of the cards I run, so something like a 600W PSU should have absolutely no problems running the Nano, I am curious to see how it performs in the worse case scenario that we see in a lot of ITX cases, i.e. very limited to no airflow and very confined space such as a Dan Case A4 or a Louqe Ghost S1.
 

hyp36rmax

Trash Compacter
May 7, 2018
43
60
As stated previously, there is almost definitely something else wrong that is not the graphics card. I have 4 vega cards running in 4 different setups for myself, friends and family, one (my own) is a vega 64 reference card running on a 600w 80+ gold sfx psu, never had any shutdowns or reboots due to power draw. the other three vegas that I helped put together in builds are all running with 850w Focus Plus Gold power supplies, two are 64's and one is a vega frontier and none have ever shut down due to power draw.

The vega nano, in comparison to the systems that I run, should draw significantly less power than any of the cards I run, so something like a 600W PSU should have absolutely no problems running the Nano, I am curious to see how it performs in the worse case scenario that we see in a lot of ITX cases, i.e. very limited to no airflow and very confined space such as a Dan Case A4 or a Louqe Ghost S1.

Curious what resolution you and the other systems are playing at. The user above is playing in 4K which could also cause the gpu excessive load and possible spikes triggering the OCP. More so with an SFX(L) PSU.

Another issue most people don't think about is using two separate PCIE cables instead they use the single split that can cause stability issues especially with VEGA GPU's

I've personally had issues with two brand new Seasonic 1200 PRIME PSU's causing reboots on a freshly built test bench and another system. After replacing those with a higher wattage EVGA Superflower PSU all the issues were gone. This happened with a 4k setup and triple 1440p 144hz setup.

It all comes down to quality PSU's even the highly regarded models such as the Seasonic PRIME are vulnerable to issues.
 
Last edited:

ChinStrap

Cable-Tie Ninja
Sep 13, 2017
169
146
My HP Omen X 330w brick has been powering my Nano just fine. While messing with clocks, my kill a watt even showed peaks of 415w.

415 from a 330 is too risky for me. I would be worried about 2-3+ hour sessions. I feel like that brick would be holding on for dear life.
 

rusty815

Caliper Novice
Jun 22, 2018
23
31
Curious what resolution you and the other systems are playing at. The user above is playing in 4K which could also cause the gpu excessive load and possible spikes triggering the OCP. More so with an SFX(L) PSU.

Another issue most people don't think about is using two separate PCIE cables instead they use the single split that can cause stability issues especially with VEGA GPU's

I've personally had issues with two brand new Seasonic 1200 PRIME PSU's causing reboots on a freshly built test bench and another system. After replacing those with a higher wattage EVGA Superflower PSU all the issues were gone. This happened with a 4k setup and triple 1440p 144hz setup.

It all comes down to quality PSU's even the highly regarded models such as the Seasonic PRIME are vulnerable to issues.

My personal build is a two monitor setup with a 1440p 144hz monitor and a 4k 60hz monitor, both freesync monitors. Like I said my setup is a vega 64 with a 600w Silverstone 80+ gold sfx psu and it has no trouble driving both my monitors. What is most likely the issue is that the user I quoted is most likely increasing the voltage to their Vega or their vega is having having problems at the stock voltage which causes stability issues (anyone who has watercooled a vega and tried overclocking it by increasing voltage knows this, I tried this with a vega frontier and a 1200w psu and I could never get it to run stable at 4k gaming, constant system crashes). The best method to get the most performance out of a vega while maintaining stability is to undervolt it as far as it can go while maintaining stability, I don't know if the user I quoted did that, but I made sure to undervolt the vega GPU's for all the builds I worked on, and that is most likely why none of them experience power issues.

Also don't know which model vega the user had, if they had an asus, gigabyte, or msi vega card then the problem could be related to the VRM and cooling on the card, which the above manufacturers have problems with on their vega cards. Sapphire and powercolor both do not seem to have these problems with their vega GPU's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyp36rmax

Lupercal

Caliper Novice
Sep 14, 2017
32
39
415 from a 330 is too risky for me. I would be worried about 2-3+ hour sessions. I feel like that brick would be holding on for dear life.
I agree. They were only occasional, brief spikes, though. I have it back on stock clocks and voltages. I just haven't had time to find the sweet spot.
 

Gutzy

Caliper Novice
Mar 11, 2018
31
14
Tried paring mine with a 2600X but it only POSTS and/or boots to windows occasionally as long as all peripherals are disconnected first.
HDPLEX 400W and 330W Dell brick is my power setup . Going to try and undervolt the CPU since undervolting Vega Nano seemed to have no effect.
 

SiG

Trash Compacter
Oct 8, 2017
48
13
From what I'm reading, it seems like the Vega Nano is...not worth upgrading to? Especially for people who already have the R9 Nano?

I have an i7-6700k running at stock and an R9 Nano with its Power Limit set to +50% and undervolted to around 1174mV when hitting 1000MHz. Fan is allowed to ramp up to MAX and all settings were made via Adrenaline drivers (I dislike having to rely on 3rd party utlities like Afterburner, as it adds hassle to troubleshooting games). My system is running a Corsair 600W PSU.

From the rough comparisons I've seen using pcpartpicker, it seems my system is pulling somewhere around 369W-400~W, but with the Vega Nano I could be pulling around 404W on stock alone. I don't really intend to overclock (is Power Limit increase considered overclocking?) as I hate wearing down my hardware, but I'm willing to pull of the same Power Limit at +50% and undervolt meathod to maximize performance, and it seems that, appart from drawing more power than a 1080Mini, it's also producing a lot of heat. I don't mind aggressive fan curves, but 75C out of the gate? I know my Nano top 65C on Crysis 3, with 75C being a set maximum limit for anything involving prolonged number crunching. The scarcity and the price of the card don't help at all much...

I've been thinking about constructing a new rig in the near future, even considering jumping to an Nvidia card next generation, but it's a long wait, and I kinda wished Vega Nano was like the R9...minus the heat problems.
 

lhl

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Nov 16, 2015
121
143
At stock voltage (1200mV) my Ryzen 7/Vega 64 system was hitting 450W from the wall, however you should be able to PL+50% and lower the P7 voltage to about 1000mV (silicon lottery plays a big role here, I've seen people have good results down to 900mV or require up to 1100mV) for good clock speeds (undervolting tends to increase performance) and wall power consumption of under 300W.

I've seen people finding deals for MSRP finally w/ the cryptomining craze cooling down, but the Nano seems to be permanently out of stock and honestly, you can also get a Zotac GTX 1080 Mini for the same price ($500), which should have better thermals and slightly better performance than the V56 Nano and is widely available/in stock. I've been running Polaris, Vega, and Pascal cards (currently w/ a 1080 Ti on my primary workstation) and IMO there's not much difference between going Red vs Green this gen, just pick whatever is more available/better bang/buck.
 

T_Tank

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 16, 2017
123
92
Yeah... I'm a bit miffed that the vega nano is out of stock an seams to gone up in price else where... really have a hard time swallowing buying from team green even with them being cheaper.
May just end up buying the vega 56 pulse or one of the airboost vega cards for the sake of blower.
 

Majestic

Average Stuffer
May 12, 2018
63
51
From what I'm reading, it seems like the Vega Nano is...not worth upgrading to? Especially for people who already have the R9 Nano?

I have an i7-6700k running at stock and an R9 Nano with its Power Limit set to +50% and undervolted to around 1174mV when hitting 1000MHz. Fan is allowed to ramp up to MAX and all settings were made via Adrenaline drivers (I dislike having to rely on 3rd party utlities like Afterburner, as it adds hassle to troubleshooting games). My system is running a Corsair 600W PSU.

From the rough comparisons I've seen using pcpartpicker, it seems my system is pulling somewhere around 369W-400~W, but with the Vega Nano I could be pulling around 404W on stock alone. I don't really intend to overclock (is Power Limit increase considered overclocking?) as I hate wearing down my hardware, but I'm willing to pull of the same Power Limit at +50% and undervolt meathod to maximize performance, and it seems that, appart from drawing more power than a 1080Mini, it's also producing a lot of heat. I don't mind aggressive fan curves, but 75C out of the gate? I know my Nano top 65C on Crysis 3, with 75C being a set maximum limit for anything involving prolonged number crunching. The scarcity and the price of the card don't help at all much...

I've been thinking about constructing a new rig in the near future, even considering jumping to an Nvidia card next generation, but it's a long wait, and I kinda wished Vega Nano was like the R9...minus the heat problems.

I have the R9 Nano and the Vega 56 Nano. I think it's a worthwhile investment if you own a 1440p or 4k FreeSync monitor and want a SFF case that's actually small. My R9 Nano could not play PUBG at reliable frames on my LG 34UC98-W at 3440x1440. I had to play at 2560x1080 to keep the frames between 60-75 on the R9 Nano and when playing at 1440p I would get 30-50 FPS on medium-low settings. If you've played PUBG you know the game could go from no action to high action really fast. When I tried to play at 1440p with the R9 Nano in PUBG I'd get massive frame drops when enemies popped up and shot at me with automatic rifles (the absolute worst time). I can play the game easily at 1440p on the Vega Nano and the frames are around 80-90 FPS medium-high settings. Because PUBG is not optimized I still get frame drops at certain times so I use vsync as well at 60FPS for smooth game play. With the R9 Nano that's not even an option on 1440p.

Ok, let me stop rambling. Here's how I see it.

  • You only or mainly play at 1080p.
    • Keep the R9 Nano, don't upgrade.
  • You don't care about FreeSync.
    • Keep R9 Nano or upgrade to GTX 1070/1080 mini.
  • You don't care about mini GPUs or SFF mITX cases at all.
    • Why are you reading this then? Use any normal sized GPU that fits your fancy.
  • You care about FreeSync, SFF mITX cases that are actually small, AND you want to play above 1080p resolutions on high settings with competitive framerates.
    • Upgrade to Vega Nano.
Final notes: If your case has decent cooling you should find that the R9 Nano and Vega Nano temps and noise are similar. Temps and noise are the same to me in my LZ7 case.
 

T_Tank

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 16, 2017
123
92
I reckon to if you do vr you want to upgrade to the vega nano I'm having some lovely frame drops in vrchat now and then @-@
 

hyp36rmax

Trash Compacter
May 7, 2018
43
60
From what I'm reading, it seems like the Vega Nano is...not worth upgrading to? Especially for people who already have the R9 Nano?

I have an i7-6700k running at stock and an R9 Nano with its Power Limit set to +50% and undervolted to around 1174mV when hitting 1000MHz. Fan is allowed to ramp up to MAX and all settings were made via Adrenaline drivers (I dislike having to rely on 3rd party utlities like Afterburner, as it adds hassle to troubleshooting games). My system is running a Corsair 600W PSU.

From the rough comparisons I've seen using pcpartpicker, it seems my system is pulling somewhere around 369W-400~W, but with the Vega Nano I could be pulling around 404W on stock alone. I don't really intend to overclock (is Power Limit increase considered overclocking?) as I hate wearing down my hardware, but I'm willing to pull of the same Power Limit at +50% and undervolt meathod to maximize performance, and it seems that, appart from drawing more power than a 1080Mini, it's also producing a lot of heat. I don't mind aggressive fan curves, but 75C out of the gate? I know my Nano top 65C on Crysis 3, with 75C being a set maximum limit for anything involving prolonged number crunching. The scarcity and the price of the card don't help at all much...

I've been thinking about constructing a new rig in the near future, even considering jumping to an Nvidia card next generation, but it's a long wait, and I kinda wished Vega Nano was like the R9...minus the heat problems.

I own the new VEGA 56 NANO and a FURY X (For a slight comparison in terms of performance) Definitely worth it if you own a 1440P, 4K, 144hz refresh monitor. I can comfortably play games with higher IQ and refresh much easier then I could with the FURY X at the same resolutions. You may hit the thermal limit depending on the SFF chassis, overall cooling and resolution you're playing at.
 

SiG

Trash Compacter
Oct 8, 2017
48
13
At stock voltage (1200mV) my Ryzen 7/Vega 64 system was hitting 450W from the wall, however you should be able to PL+50% and lower the P7 voltage to about 1000mV (silicon lottery plays a big role here, I've seen people have good results down to 900mV or require up to 1100mV) for good clock speeds (undervolting tends to increase performance) and wall power consumption of under 300W.

I've seen people finding deals for MSRP finally w/ the cryptomining craze cooling down, but the Nano seems to be permanently out of stock and honestly, you can also get a Zotac GTX 1080 Mini for the same price ($500), which should have better thermals and slightly better performance than the V56 Nano and is widely available/in stock. I've been running Polaris, Vega, and Pascal cards (currently w/ a 1080 Ti on my primary workstation) and IMO there's not much difference between going Red vs Green this gen, just pick whatever is more available/better bang/buck.
Hmm, those numbers look good. My power supply supports 600W, but it looks like I'm going to have to pull out the old Excel spreadsheet again to figure out a nice easing curve for such a GPU.

I know based on my numbers that it seems...I'm not so lucky when it comes to this "silicon lottery" stuff, and it seems my undervolting numbers are rather conservative compared to other's benchmarks, as going any lower would cause problems running the more taxing games (Ryse: Son of Rome, Assassin's Creed: Origin, Crysis 3, etc.). One of the biggest ires I've had about the process was getting the best performance while maintaining reasonably good stability (i.e. won't crash with newer, more demanding titles).

Here's some of my R9 Nano numbers/settings (currently running something heavy in the background):




I was hoping the Vega Nano would mitigate the need for me to "babysit" the card, but all the reports about it also having similar heat issues does warant concern, as I am able to maintain temps on my R9 Nano only by removing the dust filters off of my Silverstone Raven RVZ02.
(My HDD sits in the GPU compartment, restricting me to mini GPUs. More on that later.)

I do use aggressive fan curves as I don't really mind the noise generated by my Nano; it's less loud than my former card (HD 7870) when hitting peaks.
I have the R9 Nano and the Vega 56 Nano. I think it's a worthwhile investment if you own a 1440p or 4k FreeSync monitor and want a SFF case that's actually small. My R9 Nano could not play PUBG at reliable frames on my LG 34UC98-W at 3440x1440. I had to play at 2560x1080 to keep the frames between 60-75 on the R9 Nano and when playing at 1440p I would get 30-50 FPS on medium-low settings. If you've played PUBG you know the game could go from no action to high action really fast. When I tried to play at 1440p with the R9 Nano in PUBG I'd get massive frame drops when enemies popped up and shot at me with automatic rifles (the absolute worst time). I can play the game easily at 1440p on the Vega Nano and the frames are around 80-90 FPS medium-high settings. Because PUBG is not optimized I still get frame drops at certain times so I use vsync as well at 60FPS for smooth game play. With the R9 Nano that's not even an option on 1440p.

Ok, let me stop rambling. Here's how I see it.

  • You only or mainly play at 1080p.
    • Keep the R9 Nano, don't upgrade.
  • You don't care about FreeSync.
    • Keep R9 Nano or upgrade to GTX 1070/1080 mini.
  • You don't care about mini GPUs or SFF mITX cases at all.
    • Why are you reading this then? Use any normal sized GPU that fits your fancy.
  • You care about FreeSync, SFF mITX cases that are actually small, AND you want to play above 1080p resolutions on high settings with competitive framerates.
    • Upgrade to Vega Nano.
Final notes: If your case has decent cooling you should find that the R9 Nano and Vega Nano temps and noise are similar. Temps and noise are the same to me in my LZ7 case.
I own the new VEGA 56 NANO and a FURY X (For a slight comparison in terms of performance) Definitely worth it if you own a 1440P, 4K, 144hz refresh monitor. I can comfortably play games with higher IQ and refresh much easier then I could with the FURY X at the same resolutions. You may hit the thermal limit depending on the SFF chassis, overall cooling and resolution you're playing at.
As noted above, I have a Silverstone Raven RVZ02 B (dust filter edition), and had to take out the filters to improve airflow. I'm restrained to sticking to mini GPUs since my HDD is taking up part of the GPU chamber, and I have an optical drive, M.2 drive, and SSD loaded up in the chassy as well, meaning there's no room to do the "custom mod" to force the HDD on the CPU/motherboard chamber.

I have 3 x 1366x768 monitors and don't usually exceed 60fps. I was toying with the idea of upgrading to the Nano to give me better performance on games like Elite: Dangerous, where I use all 3 of my monitors via AMD Eyefinity. In fact, I kind of wanted to play more games in a multi monitor fashion, and I wasn't sure if my R9 Nano was cutting it (4098 x 768 @ 60fps).

At the moment I don't have a 4k monitor, but I do have a Samsung KU-6290, then again I don't think I would be able to take advantage of FreeSync withough plugging my rig directly to the TV.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Phuncz

Majestic

Average Stuffer
May 12, 2018
63
51
In case people are still waiting for this card to go back on sale and are worried about the bundle. I was able to sell the Power Color Gaming Station for $210 on ebay and had at least 2 interested buyers. Even after the shipping/paypal/ebay fees I should get about $170 profit so I actually saved $10-20 minus the time to list it online. I only had the listing up for a bit over 24 hours so it looks like people are buying into the eGPU enclosures.
Note: When I sell on Ebay I only set "Buy it Now" prices and don't mess with auctions.
 
Last edited:

hyp36rmax

Trash Compacter
May 7, 2018
43
60
Reached out to a few Waterblock manufacturers such as EK, Bykski, Watercool, and Alphacool for a possible block and so far Alphacool and Watercool don't have any current plans for our VEGA 56 NANO. I'd imagine EK and Bykski would be our best bet since they both seem to make blocks for even the most obscure yet popular GPU's. Maybe if enough of us shoot them a tweet they'll reconsider.



 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InfernoZeus

CC Ricers

Shrink Way Wielder
Bronze Supporter
Nov 1, 2015
2,103
2,318
Bykski seem more receptive to make full cover blocks for the short cards. They even make ones for the 1060 and 1050 Ti which aren't really needed for cooling but it's all about having matching blocks for your setup :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyp36rmax