GeForce RTX 4090 D vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce RTX 4090 D, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4090 D outperforms R9 Nano by a whopping 280% 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 | 296 | 8 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.68 | 25.94 |
| Power efficiency | 8.82 | 13.80 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | AD102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 28 December 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $1,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4090 D has 454% 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 | 14592 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 425 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 1,149 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 73.54 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 176 |
| TMUs | 256 | 456 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 456 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 114 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR6X |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 1,008 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
−230%
| 300−350
+230%
|
| 4K | 46
−270%
| 170−180
+270%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
−33.8%
| 5.33
+33.8%
|
| 4K | 14.11
−50%
| 9.41
+50%
|
- RTX 4090 D has 34% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4090 D has 50% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−242%
|
400−450
+242%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−272%
|
160−170
+272%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−253%
|
300−310
+253%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−242%
|
400−450
+242%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−273%
|
250−260
+273%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−274%
|
400−450
+274%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−269%
|
240−250
+269%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−272%
|
160−170
+272%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−264%
|
550−600
+264%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−253%
|
300−310
+253%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−242%
|
400−450
+242%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
−275%
|
900−950
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−254%
|
400−450
+254%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−273%
|
250−260
+273%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−274%
|
400−450
+274%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−269%
|
240−250
+269%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−272%
|
160−170
+272%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
−268%
|
280−290
+268%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−278%
|
170−180
+278%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−273%
|
220−230
+273%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−264%
|
550−600
+264%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−253%
|
300−310
+253%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−254%
|
400−450
+254%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−273%
|
250−260
+273%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−272%
|
160−170
+272%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−280%
|
300−310
+280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−262%
|
170−180
+262%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−264%
|
550−600
+264%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
−274%
|
400−450
+274%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−272%
|
160−170
+272%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−269%
|
550−600
+269%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−276%
|
650−700
+276%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−274%
|
700−750
+274%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−279%
|
220−230
+279%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−275%
|
75−80
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−262%
|
170−180
+262%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−265%
|
190−200
+265%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−275%
|
90−95
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−275%
|
120−130
+275%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−275%
|
180−190
+275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−268%
|
70−75
+268%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−278%
|
450−500
+278%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−255%
|
110−120
+255%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−268%
|
70−75
+268%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−271%
|
260−270
+271%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−270%
|
85−90
+270%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| God of War | 16−18
−275%
|
60−65
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−264%
|
80−85
+264%
|
This is how R9 Nano and RTX 4090 D compete in popular games:
- RTX 4090 D is 230% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4090 D is 270% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.25 | 76.98 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 28 December 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 425 Watt |
R9 Nano has 142.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 4090 D, on the other hand, has a 280.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4090 D is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
