Arc Graphics 130V vs Radeon R9 Nano
Arc Graphics 130V
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 Nano
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Arc Graphics 130V is positioned at rank #302 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc Graphics 130V
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc Graphics 130V is significantly newer (2024 vs 2015). The Arc Graphics 130V likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 Nano lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 Nano is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.2% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (2 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc Graphics 130V.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%) |
| Longevity | Xe² (2024) (3nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 Nano offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $200 versus $250 for the Arc Graphics 130V, it costs 20% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 27.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+27.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($250) | ✅More affordable ($200) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc Graphics 130V and Radeon R9 Nano
Arc Graphics 130V
The Arc Graphics 130V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 24 2024. It features the Xe² architecture. The boost clock speed is 1850 MHz. It has 7 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 3 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,510 points.
Radeon R9 Nano
The Radeon R9 Nano is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 27 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 175W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,609 points. Launch price was $649.
Graphics Performance
The Arc Graphics 130V scores 4,510 and the Radeon R9 Nano reaches 4,609 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc Graphics 130V is built on Xe² while the Radeon R9 Nano uses GCN 3.0, both on 3 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 7 (Arc Graphics 130V) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano). Boost clocks: 1850 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,510 | 4,609+2% |
| Architecture | Xe² | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 3 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 7 | 4096+58414% |
| Boost Clock | 1850 MHz+85% | 1000 MHz |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc Graphics 130V comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 Nano has 2 GB. The Radeon R9 Nano offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 4096-bit.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | HBM |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 512 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 4096-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Arc Graphics 130V) vs 12 (Radeon R9 Nano). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 130V) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs UVD 6.0.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc Graphics 130V draws 15W versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 175W — a 168.4% difference. The Arc Graphics 130V is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Arc Graphics 130V) vs 550W (Radeon R9 Nano). Power connectors: Integrated vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 152mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-91% | 175W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-36% | 550W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 152mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 300.7+1043% | 26.3 |
Value Analysis
The Arc Graphics 130V launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $250, while the Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 and now averages $200. The Radeon R9 Nano costs 20% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 18.0 (Arc Graphics 130V) vs 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 Nano offers 27.8% better value. The Arc Graphics 130V is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2015).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130V | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300-54% | $649 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $250 | $200-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.0 | 23.0+28% |
| Codename | Lunar Lake iGPU | Fiji |
| Release | September 24 2024 | August 27 2015 |
| Ranking | #463 | #306 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc Graphics 130V and Radeon R9 Nano
