Radeon R9 Nano vs PRO W7600

Place in the ranking	130	256
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	75.69	5.20
Power efficiency	19.62	8.68
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Navi 33	Fiji
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7600 has 1356% 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 cores	2048	4096
Compute units	no data	64
Boost clock speed	2440 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	13,300 million	8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	312.3	256.0
Floating-point processing power	no data	8.192 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	128	256

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	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	152 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 8-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 type	GDDR6	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	+
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	18 GB/s	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	512 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
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	12 Ultimate (12_2)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.7	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.3	+
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.

PRO W7600 35.36
+67.8%

R9 Nano 21.07

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.

PRO W7600 14240
+67.8%

R9 Nano 8486

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	140−150 +57.3%	89 −57.3%
4K	80−85 +60%	50 −60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.28 +70.4%	7.29 −70.4%
4K	7.49 +73.4%	12.98 −73.4%

PRO W7600 has 70% lower cost per frame in 1080p
PRO W7600 has 73% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Dota 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 +0%	34 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
World of Tanks	240−250 +0%	240−250 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Dota 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
World of Tanks	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how PRO W7600 and R9 Nano compete in popular games:

PRO W7600 is 57% faster in 1080p
PRO W7600 is 60% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.36	21.07
Recency	3 August 2023	27 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	175 Watt

PRO W7600 has a 67.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 34.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop one.

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