Radeon R9 Nano vs Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	174	253
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	45.83	5.44
Power efficiency	10.53	8.68
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Fiji
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro Vega 56 has 742% better value for money than R9 Nano.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	3584	4096
Compute units	no data	64
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	256.0
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	8.192 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	224	256

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	152 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	-	+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	HBM2	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	+
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	512 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	+
LiquidVR	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
ZeroCore	-	+
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	+
Mantle	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 56 32.13
+45.6%

R9 Nano 22.07

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+45.6%

R9 Nano 8486

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+48.1%

R9 Nano 17282

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+23.9%

R9 Nano 14362

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	100 +12.4%	89 −12.4%
4K	61 +22%	50 −22%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.99 +82.8%	7.29 −82.8%
4K	6.54 +98.4%	12.98 −98.4%

Pro Vega 56 has 83% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 has 98% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +52.3%	40−45 −52.3%
Elden Ring	100−110 +53.5%	70−75 −53.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +33.3%	65−70 −33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +52.3%	40−45 −52.3%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +58.5%	90−95 −58.5%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +37.3%	55−60 −37.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +32%	50−55 −32%
Valorant	120−130 +43.8%	85−90 −43.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +33.3%	65−70 −33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +52.3%	40−45 −52.3%
Dota 2	36 −114%	75−80 +114%
Elden Ring	100−110 +53.5%	70−75 −53.5%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +23.9%	70−75 −23.9%
Fortnite	150−160 +31.6%	110−120 −31.6%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +58.5%	90−95 −58.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +36.4%	75−80 −36.4%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +37.3%	55−60 −37.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +27.1%	140−150 −27.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +32%	50−55 −32%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +221%	34 −221%
Valorant	120−130 +43.8%	85−90 −43.8%
World of Tanks	270−280 +13.1%	240−250 −13.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +33.3%	65−70 −33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +52.3%	40−45 −52.3%
Dota 2	102 +32.5%	75−80 −32.5%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +23.9%	70−75 −23.9%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +58.5%	90−95 −58.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +27.1%	140−150 −27.1%
Valorant	120−130 +43.8%	85−90 −43.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +58.3%	35−40 −58.3%
Elden Ring	60−65 +60.5%	35−40 −60.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +58.3%	35−40 −58.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0.6%	170−180 −0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +55%	20−22 −55%
World of Tanks	200−210 +39.9%	140−150 −39.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +37.8%	45−50 −37.8%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +62.9%	60−65 −62.9%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +53.4%	55−60 −53.4%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +44%	50−55 −44%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +67.7%	30−35 −67.7%
Valorant	90−95 +60.3%	55−60 −60.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +63.2%	18−20 −63.2%
Dota 2	55−60 +55.3%	35−40 −55.3%
Elden Ring	27−30 +64.7%	16−18 −64.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +55.3%	35−40 −55.3%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +52.9%	16−18 −52.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +50.7%	65−70 −50.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +55.3%	35−40 −55.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +63.6%	21−24 −63.6%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +63.2%	18−20 −63.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Dota 2	96 +153%	35−40 −153%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +55.2%	27−30 −55.2%
Fortnite	40−45 +59.3%	27−30 −59.3%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +54.5%	30−35 −54.5%
Valorant	45−50 +74.1%	27−30 −74.1%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and R9 Nano compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is 12% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 is 22% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 221% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Nano is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
R9 Nano is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.13	22.07
Recency	14 August 2017	27 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	175 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 45.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R9 Nano, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.