GeForce 9300 SE vs Radeon R9 Nano

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce 9300 SE, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Nano
2015, $649
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
20.20
+10532%

R9 Nano outperforms 9300 SE by a whopping 10532% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3061455
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.74no data
Power efficiency8.90no data
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameFijiG98
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (10 years ago)1 June 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores40968
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data540 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Wattno data
Texture fill rate256.04.320
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs2568
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache2 MB16 KB

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length152 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone
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)DDR2
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width4096 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
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 and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmarks

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 20.20
+10532%
9300 SE 0.19

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
+10377%
9300 SE 81
Samples: 1

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 HD910−1
4K46-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.13no data
4K14.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 85−90 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 80−85 0−1
Far Cry 5 65−70 0−1
Fortnite 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 65−70 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 0−1
Valorant 150−160
+15000%
1−2
−15000%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 85−90 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+11950%
2−3
−11950%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Dota 2 110−120
+11300%
1−2
−11300%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85 0−1
Far Cry 5 65−70 0−1
Fortnite 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 65−70 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80 0−1
Metro Exodus 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 0−1
Valorant 150−160
+15000%
1−2
−15000%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Dota 2 110−120
+11300%
1−2
−11300%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85 0−1
Far Cry 5 65−70 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47 0−1
Valorant 150−160
+15000%
1−2
−15000%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+14800%
1−2
−14800%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17200%
1−2
−17200%
Valorant 180−190
+18600%
1−2
−18600%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35 0−1
Valorant 110−120
+11800%
1−2
−11800%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 0−1
Dota 2 70−75 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.20 0.19
Recency 27 August 2015 1 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm

R9 Nano has a 10531.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300 SE in performance tests.

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
NVIDIA GeForce 9300 SE
GeForce 9300 SE

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 96 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 5 votes

Rate GeForce 9300 SE 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 GeForce 9300 SE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.