FirePro W9000 vs Radeon R9 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with FirePro W9000, including specs and performance data.

R9 Nano
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
20.44
+38.3%

R9 Nano outperforms W9000 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking270356
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.061.00
Power efficiency8.563.95
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameFijiTahiti
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)14 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 Nano has 406% better value for money than FirePro W9000.

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 cores40962048
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data975 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt350 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0124.8
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs256128

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm279 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Form factorno datafull height / full length
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-pin + 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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s264 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-
StereoOutput3D-+
Dual-link DVI 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
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.

R9 Nano 20.44
+38.3%
FirePro W9000 14.78

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.

R9 Nano 8486
+38.3%
FirePro W9000 6138

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
+40%
65−70
−40%
4K46
+53.3%
30−35
−53.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.13
+763%
61.52
−763%
4K14.11
+845%
133.30
−845%
  • R9 Nano has 763% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 Nano has 845% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+40%
85−90
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+41.7%
60−65
−41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+40%
85−90
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+53.3%
45−50
−53.3%
Fortnite 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+40%
60−65
−40%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+46.7%
45−50
−46.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+43.6%
55−60
−43.6%
Valorant 150−160
+50%
100−105
−50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+41.7%
60−65
−41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+40%
85−90
−40%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+41.2%
170−180
−41.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Dota 2 110−120
+41.3%
80−85
−41.3%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+53.3%
45−50
−53.3%
Fortnite 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+40%
60−65
−40%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+46.7%
45−50
−46.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80
+40%
55−60
−40%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+43.6%
55−60
−43.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+47.5%
40−45
−47.5%
Valorant 150−160
+50%
100−105
−50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+41.7%
60−65
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Dota 2 110−120
+41.3%
80−85
−41.3%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+53.3%
45−50
−53.3%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+40%
60−65
−40%
Hogwarts Legacy 40−45
+51.9%
27−30
−51.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+43.6%
55−60
−43.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Valorant 150−160
+50%
100−105
−50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+48%
100−105
−48%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+44.2%
120−130
−44.2%
Valorant 180−190
+44.6%
130−140
−44.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+45%
40−45
−45%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+51.4%
35−40
−51.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Valorant 110−120
+38.8%
85−90
−38.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Dota 2 70−75
+40%
50−55
−40%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%

This is how R9 Nano and FirePro W9000 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Nano is 40% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Nano is 53% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.44 14.78
Recency 27 August 2015 14 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 350 Watt

R9 Nano has a 38.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% lower power consumption.

FirePro W9000, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W9000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop card while FirePro W9000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

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 FirePro W9000
FirePro W9000

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.3 91 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 5 votes

Rate FirePro W9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Nano or FirePro W9000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.