Radeon R9 Nano vs RX Vega 56

Place in the ranking	152	252
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	24.11	5.31
Power efficiency	11.18	8.62
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Fiji
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 56 has 354% 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	3584	4096
Compute units	no data	64
Core clock speed	1156 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1471 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	329.5	256.0
Floating-point processing power	10.54 TFLOPS	8.192 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	224	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 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	152 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-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	HBM2	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	+
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	409.6 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	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 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	+
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.

RX Vega 56 34.25
+55.6%

R9 Nano 22.01

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.

RX Vega 56 13201
+55.6%

R9 Nano 8486

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.

RX Vega 56 29086
+68.3%

R9 Nano 17282

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.

RX Vega 56 54586
+25.4%

R9 Nano 43546

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.

RX Vega 56 20759
+44.5%

R9 Nano 14362

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.

RX Vega 56 125359
+54.1%

R9 Nano 81374

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.

RX Vega 56 412820
+2.6%

R9 Nano 402499

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	114 +28.1%	89 −28.1%
1440p	78 +56%	50−55 −56%
4K	45 +2.3%	44 −2.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.50	7.29
1440p	5.12	12.98
4K	8.87	14.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

55−60
+68.6%

35−40

−68.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	77 +57.1%	45−50 −57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +59.5%	35−40 −59.5%
Battlefield 5	164 +128%	70−75 −128%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75 +55.6%	45−50 −55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Far Cry 5	115 +125%	50−55 −125%
Far Cry New Dawn	114 +96.6%	55−60 −96.6%
Forza Horizon 4	293 +120%	130−140 −120%
Hitman 3	70−75 +63.6%	40−45 −63.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +42.3%	100−110 −42.3%
Metro Exodus	144 +89.5%	75−80 −89.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85 +43.1%	55−60 −43.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	184 +152%	70−75 −152%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +26%	95−100 −26%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	134 +173%	45−50 −173%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +59.5%	35−40 −59.5%
Battlefield 5	153 +113%	70−75 −113%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75 +55.6%	45−50 −55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Far Cry 5	92 +80.4%	50−55 −80.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	88 +51.7%	55−60 −51.7%
Forza Horizon 4	272 +105%	130−140 −105%
Hitman 3	70−75 +63.6%	40−45 −63.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +42.3%	100−110 −42.3%
Metro Exodus	119 +56.6%	75−80 −56.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85 +43.1%	55−60 −43.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +67.1%	70−75 −67.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +50%	45−50 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +26%	95−100 −26%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	52 +6.1%	45−50 −6.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +59.5%	35−40 −59.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75 +55.6%	45−50 −55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Far Cry 5	69 +35.3%	50−55 −35.3%
Forza Horizon 4	109 −22%	130−140 +22%
Hitman 3	70−75 +63.6%	40−45 −63.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +42.3%	100−110 −42.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +67.1%	70−75 −67.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 +57.4%	47 −57.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +26%	95−100 −26%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

80−85
+43.1%

55−60

−43.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	98 +133%	40−45 −133%
Far Cry New Dawn	60 +76.5%	30−35 −76.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	44 +91.3%	21−24 −91.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40 +76.2%	21−24 −76.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 +60%	24−27 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +92.3%	12−14 −92.3%
Far Cry 5	46 +84%	24−27 −84%
Forza Horizon 4	268 +116%	120−130 −116%
Hitman 3	40−45 +65.4%	24−27 −65.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +62.2%	45−50 −62.2%
Metro Exodus	74 +80.5%	40−45 −80.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +76.1%	45−50 −76.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +80.8%	24−27 −80.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	170−180 +39.4%	120−130 −39.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60
+59.5%

35−40

−59.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	46 +109%	21−24 −109%
Far Cry New Dawn	32 +88.2%	16−18 −88.2%
Hitman 3	27−30 +64.7%	16−18 −64.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +45.6%	110−120 −45.6%
Metro Exodus	46 +91.7%	24−27 −91.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	44 +25.7%	35 −25.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27 +108%	12−14 −108%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20−22 +81.8%	10−12 −81.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +75%	12−14 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Far Cry 5	23 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +76.9%	24−27 −76.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+57.9%

18−20

−57.9%

This is how RX Vega 56 and R9 Nano compete in popular games:

RX Vega 56 is 28% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 56 is 56% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 56 is 2% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 173% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Nano is 22% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 56 is ahead in 71 test (99%)
R9 Nano is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	34.25	22.01
Recency	14 August 2017	27 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	175 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 55.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R9 Nano, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.

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