Club3D R9 Nano 4GB HBMv1 Graphics Card Review




/ 9 years ago

« Previous Page

Next Page »

Synthetic Benchmarks


3D Mark


3dmark13

Our first test sees the trio pitted against 3DMark Firestrike. The performance curve is good here with a nice gap between them and the GTX 960.

r9nanofirestrike (1)

The Inno3D card asserting a strong and early lead over the other two at 1440p.

r9nanofirestrike (2)

The lack of VRAM really hinders the cards here with a sharp drop; this pushes the cards down to bottom.

r9nanofirestrike (3)


Unigine Valley


Unigine Valley isn’t a playable game, but it gives a much better view of the overall performance of the graphics cards. Through each test, it shows that the Nano is around 15% slower than the R9 Fury X and marginally slower than the R9 Fury.

r9nanovalley (2)

r9nanovalley (3)

r9nanovalley (1)


Compute Performance


Pitting the card at Luxmark and we can see that the Fiji core in the Nano is slightly weaker than the core in the R9 Fury X. However, rumours are circulating that AMD has chosen only the strongest Fiji units that can perform roughly the same as the R9 Fury X on much less power. It seems that the rumour may be true.

r9nanocompute 

« Previous Page

Next Page »


Topics: , , , , , , , , ,

Support eTeknix.com

By supporting eTeknix, you help us grow and continue to bring you the latest newsreviews, and competitions. Follow us on FacebookTwitter and Instagram to keep up with the latest technology news, reviews and more. Share your favourite articles, chat with the team and more. Also check out eTeknix YouTube, where you'll find our latest video reviews, event coverage and features in 4K!

Looking for more exciting features on the latest technology? Check out our What We Know So Far section or our Fun Reads for some interesting original features.

eTeknix Facebook eTeknix Twitter eTeknix Instagram eTeknix Instagram
  • Be Social With eTeknix

    Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Reddit RSS Discord Patreon TikTok Twitch
  • Features


Send this to a friend
})