Radeon Pro W6600 vs R9 Nano

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

R9 Nano
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 175 Watt
22.00

Pro W6600 outperforms R9 Nano by an impressive 84% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking24999
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.3470.13
Power efficiency8.6927.95
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameFijiNavi 23
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro W6600 has 1213% 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 cores40961792
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data2331 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz2903 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0325.1
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS10.4 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs256112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 x16
Length152 mm241 mm
Width2-slot1-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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s224.0 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 DisplayPort4x DisplayPort
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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan+1.2
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
Pro W6600 40.43
+83.8%

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
Pro W6600 15596
+83.8%

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 HD90
−77.8%
160−170
+77.8%
4K44
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.214.06
4K14.758.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
−83.7%
90−95
+83.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−75.7%
65−70
+75.7%
Battlefield 5 70−75
−80.6%
130−140
+80.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−77.8%
80−85
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−76.5%
90−95
+76.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
−72.4%
100−105
+72.4%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−80.5%
240−250
+80.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−82.7%
190−200
+82.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
−71.1%
130−140
+71.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
−72.4%
100−105
+72.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
−78.1%
130−140
+78.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−77.1%
170−180
+77.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
−83.7%
90−95
+83.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−75.7%
65−70
+75.7%
Battlefield 5 70−75
−80.6%
130−140
+80.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−77.8%
80−85
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−76.5%
90−95
+76.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
−72.4%
100−105
+72.4%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−80.5%
240−250
+80.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−82.7%
190−200
+82.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
−71.1%
130−140
+71.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
−72.4%
100−105
+72.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
−78.1%
130−140
+78.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−77.1%
85−90
+77.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−77.1%
170−180
+77.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
−83.7%
90−95
+83.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
−75.7%
65−70
+75.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
−77.8%
80−85
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−76.5%
90−95
+76.5%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−80.5%
240−250
+80.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
−82.7%
190−200
+82.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
−78.1%
130−140
+78.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
−80.9%
85−90
+80.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−77.1%
170−180
+77.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
−72.4%
100−105
+72.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−78.6%
75−80
+78.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−76.5%
60−65
+76.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−73.9%
40−45
+73.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−66.7%
35−40
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−80%
45−50
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−80%
45−50
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
−77.4%
220−230
+77.4%
Hitman 3 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−77.8%
80−85
+77.8%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−82.9%
75−80
+82.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
−73.9%
80−85
+73.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
−81.1%
230−240
+81.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−75.7%
65−70
+75.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−81.8%
40−45
+81.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Hitman 3 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
−75.4%
200−210
+75.4%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−66.7%
40−45
+66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%

This is how R9 Nano and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6600 is 78% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6600 is 82% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.00 40.43
Recency 27 August 2015 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 100 Watt

Pro W6600 has a 83.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 75% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.


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 Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

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
4.2 64 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 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.