Contents:HighlightsSummaryGaming PerformanceBenchmark PerformanceTechnical SpecsRelated ComparisonsRelated GPUs
Performance
Radeon R9 Nano
17,28217% of 104,598
Arc A750116% better
37,28836% of 104,598
The Arc A750 has 116% better performance than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R9 Nano
26.6316% of 161.45
Arc A750385% better
129.0280% of 161.45
The Arc A750 has 385% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Shop Radeon R9 Nano
Shop Arc A750
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Summary
#
About the AMD Radeon R9 Nano GPU
The AMD Radeon R9 Nano is an end-of-life desktop graphics card that released in Q3 2015 with a MSRP of $649. It is built on the GCN 3.0 GPU microarchitecture (codename Fiji) and is manufactured on a 28 nm process.
Memory
The R9 Nano has 4 GB of HBM memory, with a 500 MHz memory clock and a 4,096 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 512 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The R9 Nano includes 4,096 stream processors (SPs), the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 1,000 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 256 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 64 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The R9 Nano occupies 2 PCIe expansion slots. It supports HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 display connections. AMD recommends a power supply of at least 450 W to handle the GPU's thermal design power (TDP) of 175 W.
Benchmark Performance & Value
The R9 Nano has the 133rd best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 16.52% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 17,282 score and $649 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 26.63. This is the 82nd best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
About the Intel Arc A750 GPU
The Intel Arc A750 is a desktop graphics card that launched in Q4 2022 with a MSRP of $289. It is built on the Generation 12.7 GPU microarchitecture (codename DG2-512) and is manufactured on a 6 nm process.
Memory
The Arc A750 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, with a 2,000 MHz memory clock and a 256 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 512 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The Arc A750 includes 3,584 shading units, the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 2,050 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 2,400 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 224 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 112 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing. Additionally, the GPU features 448 Xe Matrix Extensions (XMX) optimized for AI workloads and 28 ray tracing units dedicated to real-time ray tracing calculations.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The Arc A750 occupies 2 PCIe expansion slots. It supports HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.0 display connections. Intel recommends a power supply of at least 550 W to handle the GPU's thermal design power (TDP) of 225 W.
Benchmark Performance & Value
The Arc A750 has the 49th best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 35.65% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 37,288 score and $289 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 129.02. This is the 3rd best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release Date | Q3 2015 | Q4 2022 |
| Launch Price (MSRP) | $649 | $289 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
#
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
F1 24
Senua's Saga Hellblade 2
Ghost of Tsushima
Dragon's Dogma 2
Horizon Forbidden West
Alone in the Dark (2024)
Sons of the Forest
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
F1 24 | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 1080p | -- | 265 FPS |
| Medium - 1080p | -- | 224 FPS |
| High - 1080p | -- | 169 FPS |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | 57 FPS |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | 37 FPS |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | 17 FPS |
FPS Source: Notebookcheck
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 Nano orArc A750
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | 28.2 | +68% |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | 22.2 | +32% |
| Arc A770 | 21.2 | +26% |
| Radeon RX 6800 | 20.6 | +23% |
| GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | 17 | +1% |
| Arc A750 | 16.8 | |
| GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER | 13.9 | -17% |
| Radeon RX 6600 | 9.5 | -43% |
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 Nano orArc A750
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon RX 5700 | 8.35 | -51% |
| Arc A770 | 15.52 | -10% |
| Arc A750 | 17.2 | |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | 17.97 | +4% |
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | 21.24 | +23% |
| Radeon RX 6800 | 28.11 | +63% |
| GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER | 28.71 | +67% |
| GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | 29.35 | +71% |
| Radeon RX 6600 | 34.63 | +101% |
Benchmark Performance
#
Performance
Radeon R9 Nano
17,28217% of 104,598
Arc A750116% better
37,28836% of 104,598
The Arc A750 has 116% better performance than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 133rd with a score of 17,282, and the Arc A750 is ranked 49th with a score of 37,288.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R9 Nano
26.6316% of 161.45
Arc A750385% better
129.0280% of 161.45
The Arc A750 has 385% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 82nd with a performance per dollar of 26.63, and the Arc A750 is ranked 3rd with a performance per dollar of 129.02.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 Nano or
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon VII | 37,881 | +119% |
| GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | 37,671.5 | +118% |
| Arc A750 | 37,288 | +116% |
| TITAN X (Pascal) | 35,995 | +108% |
| Radeon RX 5700 XT | 35,822.5 | +107% |
| Radeon R9 FURY | 17,543 | +2% |
| GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB) | 17,401 | +1% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 17,282 | |
| Radeon R9 290X | 16,167.5 | -6% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 16,033 | -7% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 Nano or
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon RX 7600 | 161.45 | +506% |
| Arc A750 | 129.02 | +385% |
| GeForce RTX 4060 | 127.73 | +380% |
| Radeon RX 7700 XT | 127.71 | +380% |
| Arc A770 | 125.54 | +371% |
| Radeon R9 290X | 29.45 | +11% |
| GeForce GTX 660 Ti | 28.14 | +6% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 26.63 | |
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | 22.34 | -16% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 20.47 | -23% |
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Time Spy Graphics | 4,511 | 12,386 (+174.57%) |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 4,556 | 12,671 (+178.12%) |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 81,374 | 130,715 (+60.63%) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 14,362 | 29,667 (+106.57%) |
| 3DMark Night Raid Graphics | -- | 122,540 |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 14,793 | 33,184 (+124.32%) |
| PassMark G3D Mark | -- | 11,930 |
| PassMark G2D Mark | -- | 671 |
Benchmarks Source: Notebookcheck
Technical Specs
#
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Fiji | DG2-512 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Transistors | 8,900 million | 21,700 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 Gb/s | 512 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 500 MHz | 2,000 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 4,096 bit | 256 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | -- |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 16 MB |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Slots | 2 slots | 2 slots |
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 175 W | 225 W |
| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |
| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Outputs | HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 | HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.0 |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 4,096 | -- |
| Shading Units | -- | 3,584 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 64 | -- |
| Execution Units (EU) | -- | 3,584 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 256 | 224 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 64 | 112 |
| Xe Matrix Extensions (XMX) | -- | 448 |
| Ray Tracing Units (RTU) | -- | 28 |
| Core Clock Speed | 1,000 MHz | 2,050 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | -- | 2,400 MHz |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 64 GPixel/s | 268.8 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 256 GTexel/s | 537.6 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 8.19 TFLOPS | 17.2 TFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 512 GFLOPS | -- |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Radeon R9 Nano | Arc A750 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.