Radeon Pro W5700X vs R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with Radeon Pro W5700X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5700X outperforms R9 Nano by a whopping 107% 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 | 306 | 101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.74 | 17.77 |
| Power efficiency | 8.90 | 15.74 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5700X has 275% 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 | 2304 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 205 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 293.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 9.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 305 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-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) | GDDR6 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 448.0 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, 4x Thunderbolt |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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
−97.8%
| 180−190
+97.8%
|
| 4K | 46
−107%
| 95−100
+107%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
−28.5%
| 5.55
+28.5%
|
| 4K | 14.11
−34.2%
| 10.52
+34.2%
|
- Pro W5700X has 29% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro W5700X has 34% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−103%
|
240−250
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−105%
|
90−95
+105%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−100%
|
170−180
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−103%
|
240−250
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−105%
|
90−95
+105%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
−95.1%
|
160−170
+95.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−94%
|
130−140
+94%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−106%
|
220−230
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−100%
|
130−140
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−100%
|
160−170
+100%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−98.7%
|
300−310
+98.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−100%
|
170−180
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−103%
|
240−250
+103%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
−86.7%
|
450−500
+86.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−105%
|
90−95
+105%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−102%
|
230−240
+102%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
−95.1%
|
160−170
+95.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−94%
|
130−140
+94%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−106%
|
220−230
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−100%
|
130−140
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
−94.8%
|
150−160
+94.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−100%
|
160−170
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−103%
|
120−130
+103%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−98.7%
|
300−310
+98.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−100%
|
170−180
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−105%
|
90−95
+105%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−102%
|
230−240
+102%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
−95.1%
|
160−170
+95.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−94%
|
130−140
+94%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−100%
|
160−170
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−102%
|
95−100
+102%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−98.7%
|
300−310
+98.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
−106%
|
220−230
+106%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−97.7%
|
85−90
+97.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−101%
|
300−310
+101%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−103%
|
75−80
+103%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−104%
|
55−60
+104%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−102%
|
350−400
+102%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−87.2%
|
350−400
+87.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−103%
|
120−130
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−102%
|
95−100
+102%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−92.3%
|
100−105
+92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−97.9%
|
95−100
+97.9%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
−100%
|
70−75
+100%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−102%
|
240−250
+102%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−100%
|
140−150
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−94.4%
|
70−75
+94.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−105%
|
45−50
+105%
|
This is how R9 Nano and Pro W5700X compete in popular games:
- Pro W5700X is 98% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5700X is 107% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.20 | 41.86 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 11 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 205 Watt |
R9 Nano has 17.1% lower power consumption.
Pro W5700X, on the other hand, has a 107.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W5700X is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
