Radeon R9 290 vs R9 Nano

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

R9 Nano
2015
4096 MB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
21.91
+4.9%

R9 Nano outperforms R9 290 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking233243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money5.2812.45
ArchitectureGCN 1.2 (2015−2016)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameFijiHawaii
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date10 September 2015 (8 years old)5 November 2013 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $399
Current price$27 (0x MSRP)$20 (0.1x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 136% better value for money than R9 Nano.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40962560
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data947 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt275 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0151.5
Floating-point performance8,192 gflops4,849 gflops

Size and 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm275 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire1no data

Memory

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz5000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s320.0 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+no data

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration+no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune+no data
TressFX1no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore+no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.3
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

R9 Nano 21.91
+4.9%
R9 290 20.89

R9 Nano outperforms R9 290 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 Nano 8486
+4.9%
R9 290 8093

R9 Nano outperforms R9 290 by 5% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 Nano 14362
+21.1%
R9 290 11860

R9 Nano outperforms R9 290 by 21% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

R9 Nano 1732
+20.3%
R9 290 1440

R9 Nano outperforms R9 290 by 20% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.

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 HD91
+7.1%
85−90
−7.1%
4K45
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+10.8%
65−70
−10.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+14%
50−55
−14%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+5.5%
55−60
−5.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+5.7%
70−75
−5.7%
Hitman 3 60−65
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+5%
40−45
−5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+10.8%
65−70
−10.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+14%
50−55
−14%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+5.5%
55−60
−5.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+5.7%
70−75
−5.7%
Hitman 3 60−65
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+6.7%
45−50
−6.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+5%
40−45
−5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+10.8%
65−70
−10.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+5.5%
55−60
−5.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+7.3%
55−60
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+5.7%
70−75
−5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+17.5%
40−45
−17.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+5%
40−45
−5%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Hitman 3 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+8.9%
45−50
−8.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+5%
40−45
−5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Hitman 3 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%

This is how R9 Nano and R9 290 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 7.1% faster than R9 290

4K resolution:

  • R9 Nano is 12.5% faster than R9 290

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 21.91 20.89
Recency 10 September 2015 5 November 2013
Cost $649 $399
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 275 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 Nano and Radeon R9 290.


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

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 Nano
Radeon R9 Nano
AMD Radeon R9 290
Radeon R9 290

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User Ratings

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 87 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R9 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 474 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.