GeForce3 Ti200 vs Radeon R9 Nano

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking247not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.34no data
Power efficiency8.70no data
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kelvin (2001−2003)
GPU code nameFijiNV20 A5
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)1 October 2001 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores4096no data
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data175 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million57 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Wattno data
Texture fill rate256.01.400
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs2568

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 x16AGP 4x
Length152 mm183 mm
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)DDR
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB64 MB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz200 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 128.0
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.51.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 27 August 2015 1 October 2001
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm

R9 Nano has an age advantage of 13 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce3 Ti200. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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 GeForce3 Ti200
GeForce3 Ti200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 90 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 20 votes

Rate GeForce3 Ti200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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