GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Radeon R9 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon R9 A375 Radeon R9 Fury Radeon R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X2 Radeon R9 Nano
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
RTX 3050 4 GB RTX 3050 6 GB RTX 3050 8 GB RTX 3050 8 GB GA107

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Nano
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
22.08
+22.6%

R9 Nano outperforms RTX 3050 4 GB by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 Nano R9 Nano
RTX 3050 4 GB RTX 3050 4 GB

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking261319
Place by popularitynot in top-10032
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.4637.78
Power efficiency8.6513.72
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameFijiGA107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)27 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RTX 3050 4 GB has 592% 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 cores40962048
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1545 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1740 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0111.4
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS7.127 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25664
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length152 mm242 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 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)GDDR6
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

R9 Nano 22.08
+22.6%
RTX 3050 4 GB 18.01

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
+22.6%
RTX 3050 4 GB 6924

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 HD91
+30%
70−75
−30%
4K46
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.13
−151%
2.84
+151%
4K14.11
−148%
5.69
+148%
  • RTX 3050 4 GB has 151% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 4 GB has 148% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+30.8%
65−70
−30.8%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+27.3%
55−60
−27.3%
Fortnite 100−110
+25.9%
85−90
−25.9%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+29.2%
65−70
−29.2%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Valorant 150−160
+25%
120−130
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+30.8%
65−70
−30.8%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+26.3%
190−200
−26.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%
Dota 2 110−120
+25.6%
90−95
−25.6%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+27.3%
55−60
−27.3%
Fortnite 100−110
+25.9%
85−90
−25.9%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+29.2%
65−70
−29.2%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 75−80
+28.3%
60−65
−28.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+33.3%
45−50
−33.3%
Valorant 150−160
+25%
120−130
−25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+30.8%
65−70
−30.8%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%
Dota 2 110−120
+25.6%
90−95
−25.6%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+27.3%
55−60
−27.3%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+29.2%
65−70
−29.2%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+34.3%
35−40
−34.3%
Valorant 150−160
+25%
120−130
−25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+25.9%
85−90
−25.9%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+23.3%
120−130
−23.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+28.6%
21−24
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+24.3%
140−150
−24.3%
Valorant 180−190
+26%
150−160
−26%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+34.3%
35−40
−34.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+25.9%
27−30
−25.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+37.1%
35−40
−37.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
Valorant 110−120
+25.3%
95−100
−25.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Dota 2 70−75
+27.3%
55−60
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%

This is how R9 Nano and RTX 3050 4 GB compete in popular games:

  • R9 Nano is 30% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Nano is 31% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 22.08 18.01
Recency 27 August 2015 27 January 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 90 Watt

R9 Nano has a 22.6% higher aggregate performance score.

RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB in performance tests.

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
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 Nano Radeon R9 Nano
vs
RX 480 Radeon RX 480
RTX 3050 4 GB GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB
vs
RX 570 Radeon RX 570
R9 Nano Radeon R9 Nano
vs
R9 295X2 Radeon R9 295X2
RTX A5000 RTX A5000
vs
R9 Nano Nano
UHD Graphics 730 UHD Graphics 730
vs
R9 Nano Nano
RTX 3050 Max-Q NVIDIA RTX 3050 Max-Q
vs
R9 Nano Nano
RTX 2060 12 GB NVIDIA RTX 2060 12 GB
vs
R9 Nano Nano
RTX 2050 Mobile NVIDIA RTX 2050 Mobile
vs
R9 Nano Nano
GTX 770M GeForce GTX 770M
vs
GTX 980 GeForce GTX 980
GTX 850M GeForce GTX 850M
vs
GTX 980 GeForce GTX 980
K3100M Quadro K3100M
vs
GTX 980 980
GT 745M NVIDIA GT 745M
vs
GTX 980 980
Quadro M500M Quadro M500M
vs
GTX 980 980

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.3 91 vote

Rate Radeon R9 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2716 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Nano or GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.