GeForce GTX 980 Mobile vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with GeForce GTX 980 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
R9 Nano outperforms 980 Mobile by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 308 | 316 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.76 | 7.12 |
| Power efficiency | 8.93 | 7.47 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GM204 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $395.82 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 980 Mobile has 50% better value for money than R9 Nano.
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 cores | 4096 | 2048 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1064 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1216 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 100-200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 136.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 4.358 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 152 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
| 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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 |
| GameStream | - | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| BatteryBoost | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 91
−8.8%
| 99
+8.8%
|
| 4K | 46
+0%
| 46
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
−78.4%
| 4.00
+78.4%
|
| 4K | 14.11
−64%
| 8.60
+64%
|
- GTX 980 Mobile has 78% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile has 64% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+4.5%
|
110−120
−4.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+6.8%
|
40−45
−6.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+3.7%
|
80−85
−3.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+4.5%
|
110−120
−4.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+4.7%
|
60−65
−4.7%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2.9%
|
100−110
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+4.8%
|
60−65
−4.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+5.3%
|
75−80
−5.3%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2.7%
|
140−150
−2.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+3.7%
|
80−85
−3.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+4.5%
|
110−120
−4.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+2.6%
|
230−240
−2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
110−120
−2.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+4.7%
|
60−65
−4.7%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2.9%
|
100−110
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+4.8%
|
60−65
−4.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
−10.5%
|
84
+10.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+4.7%
|
40−45
−4.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+5.3%
|
75−80
−5.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−42.4%
|
84
+42.4%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2.7%
|
140−150
−2.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+3.7%
|
80−85
−3.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4.8%
|
40−45
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
110−120
−2.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+4.7%
|
60−65
−4.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+5.3%
|
75−80
−5.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+6.8%
|
44
−6.8%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2.7%
|
140−150
−2.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2.9%
|
100−110
−2.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45
−7.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+4.2%
|
140−150
−4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180
−0.6%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+2.7%
|
180−190
−2.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5.4%
|
55−60
−5.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+6.8%
|
40−45
−6.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+6.1%
|
45−50
−6.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4.3%
|
45−50
−4.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−57.9%
|
60
+57.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+16.7%
|
30
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+5.3%
|
110−120
−5.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+2.9%
|
65−70
−2.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+5.9%
|
30−35
−5.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
This is how R9 Nano and GTX 980 Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 9% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Nano is 17% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 58% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 Nano performs better in 56 tests (93%)
- GTX 980 Mobile performs better in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.29 | 19.39 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 100 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 5% higher aggregate performance score.
GTX 980 Mobile, on the other hand, has 75% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GTX 980 Mobile.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
