Radeon RX 560 vs R9 Nano

Place in the ranking	249	466
Place by popularity	not in top-100	64
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.35	1.48
Power efficiency	8.69	8.72
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Fiji	Polaris 21
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Nano has 261% better value for money than RX 560.

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	1024
Compute units	64	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1175 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1275 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	256.0	81.60
Floating-point processing power	8.192 TFLOPS	2.611 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	256	64

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 3.0 x8
Length	152 mm	170 mm
Width	2-slot	2-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	4 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	112.0 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
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 22.00
+133%

RX 560 9.46

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
+133%

RX 560 3648

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	90 +157%	35 −157%
4K	44 +144%	18−20 −144%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.21	2.83
4K	14.75	5.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40
+150%

14−16

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +133%	21−24 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +164%	14−16 −164%
Battlefield 5	70−75 +140%	30−33 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +142%	24−27 −142%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +142%	55−60 −142%
Hitman 3	40−45 +144%	18−20 −144%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +160%	40−45 −160%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +153%	30−33 −153%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +142%	24−27 −142%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +143%	30−33 −143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +133%	21−24 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +164%	14−16 −164%
Battlefield 5	70−75 +140%	30−33 −140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +142%	24−27 −142%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +142%	55−60 −142%
Hitman 3	40−45 +144%	18−20 −144%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +160%	40−45 −160%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +153%	30−33 −153%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +142%	24−27 −142%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +143%	30−33 −143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +133%	21−24 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +164%	14−16 −164%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +143%	21−24 −143%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +142%	55−60 −142%
Hitman 3	40−45 +144%	18−20 −144%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +160%	40−45 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +143%	30−33 −143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 +161%	18−20 −161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60
+142%

24−27

−142%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +133%	18−20 −133%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +156%	9−10 −156%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +148%	50−55 −148%
Hitman 3	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +156%	16−18 −156%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +156%	18−20 −156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +154%	50−55 −154%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+164%

14−16

−164%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +144%	9−10 −144%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Hitman 3	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +153%	45−50 −153%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +150%	14−16 −150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%