Notebookcheck Logo

AMD Radeon R9 Nano

AMD Radeon R9 Nano

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano is a compact high-end desktop graphics card aimed at small form factor PCs (e.g. Nano-ITX). It is based on the same Fiji chip as the Radeon R9 Fury and Fury X and features 4096 shaders like the Fury X. The clock rate is slightly slower than the Fury X (1.000 versus 1.050 MHz) but in games the real world clock speed is slower due to the aggressive power limit). The chips is manufactured in 28 nm at TSMC and features the third generation of the GCN architecture (also known as GCN 1.2). Another similarity is the 4 GB of HBM graphics memory that is also clocked at 500 MHz (4,096 bit = 512 GB/s).

The gaming performance of the R9 Fury is slightly above a GeForce GTX 980 (desktop and notebook) at maximum details and in high resolution settings (and clearly in 4K). The Radeon R9 Fury with less shaders but higher clock speeds (in games) however can pull slightly ahead on average (not in all games). All in all, the performance is sufficient for Full HD gaming with maximum details and anti-aliasing and in most games of 2015 also for 4K and high details.

The Fiji chip fully supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_0) in hardware and also integrates a new Unified Video Decoder (UVD). Like the Carrizo APUs, the R9 Fury is able to decode H.265 UHD videos on the chip. However, the HDMI outputs still only support HDMI 1.4 and therefore 4K at 30 Hz. HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, like the GeForce GTX 960, are not supported.

The power consumption is a strong point of the Fury Nano thanks to the aggressive power target. It is rated at 175 Watt (compared to the 275 Watt of the similar fast Fury) and on average comparable with a GTX 980. Only the newer GTX 1060 and 1070 of the Pascal generation in 16nm can pull clearly ahead in terms of efficiency.

CodenameFiji
ArchitectureGCN 1.2
Pipelines4096 - unified
Core Speed1000 MHz
Memory Speed500 MHz
Memory Bus Width4096 Bit
Memory TypeHBM
Max. Amount of Memory4 GB
Shared Memoryno
APIDirectX 12 (FL 12_0), OpenGL 4.3
Power Consumption175 Watt
Transistor Count8.9 Billion
technology28 nm
FeaturesMantle, Eyefinity, App Acceleration, CrossFire, PowerTune, ZeroCore, HD3D, TrueAudio
Date of Announcement10.09.2015
InformationPCI-E 3.0

Benchmarks

3DMark Vantage
3DM Vant. Perf. total +
3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX +
3DMark 06 3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x1024 +
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
GFXBench T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 +
- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance

Game Benchmarks

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don't have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

ultra 1920x1080
77  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
31.9  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
Overwatch

Overwatch

2016
high 1920x1080
227  fps    + Compare
ultra 1920x1080
117  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
75.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
Doom

Doom

2016
high 1920x1080
95  fps    + Compare
ultra 1920x1080
86.7  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
37.9  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
low 1280x768
81.8  fps    + Compare
med. 1920x1080
75.6  fps    + Compare
high 1920x1080
69.3  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
32.4  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
ultra 1920x1080
76  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
34.7  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
70  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
34.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
64  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
34.2  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
low 1280x720
143  fps    + Compare
med. 1920x1080
112  fps    + Compare
high 1920x1080
98  fps    + Compare
ultra 1920x1080
71  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
36  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
XCOM 2

XCOM 2

2016
ultra 1920x1080
35.4  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
21.9  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
56.2  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
29.8  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
141  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
60.7  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
81  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
37.1  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
117  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
48.8  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
31.3  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
30.8  fps    + Compare
» The benchmarks indicate that the game is not playable in the tested settings.
Fallout 4

Fallout 4

2015
ultra 1920x1080
79.5  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
36.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
Anno 2205

Anno 2205

2015
ultra 1920x1080
31.4  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
32.6  fps    + Compare
» The benchmarks indicate that the game is not playable in the tested settings.
ultra 1920x1080
142  fps    + Compare
4K 3840 x 2160
64  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
low 1024x768
60  fps    + Compare
med. 1366x768
60  fps    + Compare
high 1920x1080
60  fps    + Compare
ultra 1920x1080
60  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
56.4  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
Mad Max

Mad Max

2015
ultra 1920x1080
144  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
52.7  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
47  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
35  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
106  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
138  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
105  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
102  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
ultra 1920x1080
100  fps    + Compare
4K 3840x2160
53.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings ultra.
lowmed.highultraQHD4K
Mirror's Edge Catalyst7731.9
Overwatch22711775.6
Doom9586.737.9
Ashes of the Singularity81.875.669.332.4
Need for Speed 20167634.7
Hitman 20167034.6
The Division6434.2
Far Cry Primal143112987136
XCOM 235.421.9
Rise of the Tomb Raider56.229.8
Rainbow Six Siege14160.7
Just Cause 38137.1
Star Wars Battlefront11748.8
Assassin's Creed Syndicate31.330.8
Fallout 479.536.6
Anno 220531.432.6
World of Warships14264
Metal Gear Solid V6060606056.4
Mad Max14452.7
The Witcher 34735
Dirt Rally106138
Battlefield Hardline105
Dragon Age: Inquisition68.6
Alien: Isolation141
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor102
Battlefield 410053.6
Metro: Last Light96
BioShock Infinite132
Crysis 363.8
< 30 fps
< 60 fps
< 120 fps
≥ 120 fps


2
1


3


4
1

5
18
5



2
16
3
1

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2024, 2023
v1.26
log 16. 16:18:23

#0 no ids found in url (should be separated by "_") +0s ... 0s

#1 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#2 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:38:32 +0100 +0.001s ... 0.001s

#3 composed specs +0.065s ... 0.066s

#4 did output specs +0s ... 0.066s

#5 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.066s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 7372 +0.012s ... 0.078s

#7 got single benchmarks 7372 +0.007s ... 0.085s

#8 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.085s

#9 min, max, avg, median took s +0.442s ... 0.527s

#10 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.527s

#11 Got 61 rows for game benchmarks. +0.003s ... 0.53s

#12 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s ... 0.53s

#13 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.019s ... 0.549s

#14 benchmarks composed for output. +0.525s ... 1.074s

#15 return log +0.049s ... 1.122s

No reviews found for this graphics card.

Please share our article, every link counts!

» Comparison of GPUs
Detailed list of all laptop GPUs sorted by class and performance.

» Benchmark List
Sort and restrict laptop GPUs based on performance in synthetic benchmarks.

» Notebook Gaming List
Playable games for each graphics card and their average FPS results.

Class 0

Arc A380

Class 1

Arc A580 Desktop

Class 2

Class 3

UHD Graphics 32EUs
UHD Graphics 750

Class 4

* Approximate position of the graphics adapter

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Benchmarks / Tech > Comparison of Laptop Graphics Cards > AMD Radeon R9 Nano - Benchmarks and Specs
Klaus Hinum (Update: 2016-07-27)