ATI Radeon HD 5670 vs R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and Radeon HD 5670, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Nano outperforms ATI HD 5670 by a whopping 960% 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 | 292 | 923 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.66 | 0.22 |
| Power efficiency | 8.82 | 2.27 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | Redwood |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $119 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 Nano has 2018% better value for money than ATI HD 5670.
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 | 400 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 775 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 64 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 15.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 0.62 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 20 |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
| 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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 64 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| 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 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 270−280
+938%
| 26
−938%
|
| Full HD | 91
+176%
| 33
−176%
|
| 4K | 46
+1050%
| 4−5
−1050%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
−97.8%
| 3.61
+97.8%
|
| 4K | 14.11
+111%
| 29.75
−111%
|
- ATI HD 5670 has 98% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Nano has 111% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1240%
|
5−6
−1240%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+618%
|
10−12
−618%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+500%
|
40−45
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+438%
|
21−24
−438%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1240%
|
5−6
−1240%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+618%
|
10−12
−618%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+438%
|
21−24
−438%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1240%
|
5−6
−1240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+618%
|
10−12
−618%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+297%
|
35−40
−297%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+1238%
|
8−9
−1238%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1046%
|
12−14
−1046%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+811%
|
18−20
−811%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+1236%
|
14−16
−1236%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1060%
|
5−6
−1060%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+153%
|
14−16
−153%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1090%
|
10−11
−1090%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+1650%
|
4−5
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
This is how R9 Nano and ATI HD 5670 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 938% faster in 900p
- R9 Nano is 176% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 1050% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R9 Nano is 3800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 Nano surpassed ATI HD 5670 in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.25 | 1.91 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 14 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 64 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 960.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 5670, on the other hand, has 173.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5670 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.
