GRID RTX6000-8Q vs Radeon R9 Nano

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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R9 Nano is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID RTX6000-8Q.

Insight	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	Standard Size (267mm)	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 Nano offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 Nano holds the technical lead. Priced at $200 (vs $500), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 155.3% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+155.3%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500)	✅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.

GRID RTX6000-8Q Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 Nano Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GRID RTX6000-8Q and Radeon R9 Nano

GRID RTX6000-8Q

The GRID RTX6000-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,514 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 GRID RTX6000-8Q scores 4,514 and the Radeon R9 Nano reaches 4,609 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID RTX6000-8Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Radeon R9 Nano uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
G3D Mark Score	4,514	4,609+2%
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	GCN 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	2048	4096+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	4.825 TFLOPS	8.192 TFLOPS+70%
Boost Clock	1178 MHz+18%	1000 MHz
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	128	256+100%
L1 Cache	0.75 MB	1 MB+33%
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of video memory. Bus width: 64-bit vs 4096-bit.

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	HBM
Bus Width	64-bit	4096-bit+6300%
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_2 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 12 (Radeon R9 Nano). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
DirectX	12_2	12
Max Displays	0	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 7th Gen (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano). Decoder: NVDEC 4th Gen vs UVD 6.0.

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
Encoder	NVENC 7th Gen	VCE 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th Gen	UVD 6.0

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID RTX6000-8Q draws 225W versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 175W — a 25% difference. The Radeon R9 Nano is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 550W (Radeon R9 Nano). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 152mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.

Feature	GRID RTX6000-8Q	Radeon R9 Nano
TDP	225W	175W-22%
Recommended PSU	350W-36%	550W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 8-pin
Length	267mm	152mm
Slots	2	2
Perf/Watt	20.1	26.3+31%

💰

Value Analysis

The GRID RTX6000-8Q launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 and now averages $200. The Radeon R9 Nano costs 60% less ($300 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.0 (GRID RTX6000-8Q) vs 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 Nano offers 155.6% better value.