Radeon R7 370 vs R9 Nano

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and Radeon R7 370, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Nano
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
21.99
+88.3%

R9 Nano outperforms R7 370 by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking247404
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.346.43
Power efficiency8.737.37
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameFijiTrinidad
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferencereference
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 370 has 20% better value for money than R9 Nano.

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 cores40961024
Compute units64no data
Boost clock speed1000 MHz975 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt110 Watt
Texture fill rate256.062.40
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS1.997 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25664

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 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm152 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1 x 6-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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz975 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s179.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity++
Number of Eyefinity displays66
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++

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan++
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 Nano 21.99
+88.3%
R7 370 11.68

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.

R9 Nano 8486
+88.2%
R7 370 4508

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.

R9 Nano 17282
+103%
R7 370 8519

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.

R9 Nano 43546
+51.6%
R7 370 28723

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.

R9 Nano 14362
+141%
R7 370 5961

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.

R9 Nano 81374
+104%
R7 370 39809

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.

R9 Nano 402499
+24.6%
R7 370 323114

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

R9 Nano 1732
+147%
R7 370 702

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 HD89
+93.5%
46
−93.5%
1440p95−100
+79.2%
53
−79.2%
4K51
+168%
19
−168%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+94.6%
35−40
−94.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+88.9%
27−30
−88.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+70.5%
75−80
−70.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+67.7%
60−65
−67.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+100%
35−40
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+92.1%
35−40
−92.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.2%
65−70
−41.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+94.6%
35−40
−94.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+88.9%
27−30
−88.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+70.5%
75−80
−70.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+67.7%
60−65
−67.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+100%
35−40
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+92.1%
35−40
−92.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−85.4%
89
+85.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.2%
65−70
−41.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+106%
18−20
−106%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+88.9%
27−30
−88.9%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+70.5%
75−80
−70.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
+100%
21−24
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+67.7%
60−65
−67.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+92.1%
35−40
−92.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+114%
22
−114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.2%
65−70
−41.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+82.6%
21−24
−82.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+121%
55−60
−121%
Hitman 3 24−27
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+116%
18−20
−116%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+156%
18−20
−156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+74%
70−75
−74%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+94.7%
18−20
−94.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+100%
10−12
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Hitman 3 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+111%
50−55
−111%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+250%
10−11
−250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+100%
14−16
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+72.7%
10−12
−72.7%

This is how R9 Nano and R7 370 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Nano is 93% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Nano is 79% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Nano is 168% faster 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 250% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 85% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 Nano is ahead in 71 test (99%)
  • R7 370 is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.99 11.68
Recency 27 August 2015 18 June 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 110 Watt

R9 Nano has a 88.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.

R7 370, on the other hand, has 59.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.


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
AMD Radeon R7 370
Radeon R7 370

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
4 450 votes

Rate Radeon R7 370 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.