Radeon R9 Nano vs Arc Graphics 140T

CPU

GPU

Radeon R9 Nano

2015Boost: 1000 MHz

Arc Graphics 140T

2025Boost: 2350 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

Radeon R9 Nano

175

4,609

+2.4%

Radeon HD 6850 X2

Radeon R9 260

Radeon RX 550 (móvel)

Radeon RX 460 (móvel)

4,500

0.0%

Arc 8-Core iGPU

Arc A550M

Arc A770

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. 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 Arc Graphics 140T

#320

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

844%

#322

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

765%

#323

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

763%

#327

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

694%

#328

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

689%

#330

Arc Graphics 140T

MSRP: $350|Avg: $300

100%

#331

Radeon 680M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $80

99%

#333

GeForce 730A

MSRP: $60|Avg: $20

99%

#334

GeForce GT 745A

MSRP: $99|Avg: $20

97%

#335

GeForce 710A

MSRP: $35|Avg: $62

96%

#336

Radeon HD 8670D + HD 6670 Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

95%

#338

GeForce MX230

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

95%

#340

RADEON HD6410D

MSRP: $35|Avg: $5

94%

#341

GeForce 820M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

94%

#342

Radeon R7 M465X

MSRP: $150|Avg: $45

93%

#344

GeForce 830A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $30

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Arc Graphics 140T is significantly newer (2025 vs 2015). The Arc Graphics 140T 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 2.4% 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 140T.

Insight	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))	Xe+ (2025) (Standard Node)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100+%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 Nano offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $200 versus $300 for the Arc Graphics 140T, it costs 33% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 53.6% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+53.6%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($200)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300)

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.

Radeon R9 Nano Benchmark Check

Arc Graphics 140T Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 Nano and Arc Graphics 140T

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.

Arc Graphics 140T

The Arc Graphics 140T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the Xe+ architecture. The boost clock speed is 2350 MHz. It has 8 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,500 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 Nano scores 4,609 and the Arc Graphics 140T reaches 4,500 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Nano is built on GCN 3.0 while the Arc Graphics 140T uses Xe+. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 8 (Arc Graphics 140T). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 2350 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
G3D Mark Score	4,609+2%	4,500
Architecture	GCN 3.0	Xe+
Shading Units	4096+51100%	8
Boost Clock	1000 MHz	2350 MHz+135%
L2 Cache	2 MB	8 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	XeSS
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon R9 Nano comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Arc Graphics 140T has 0 MB. The Radeon R9 Nano offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 4096-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 8 MB (Arc Graphics 140T) — the Arc Graphics 140T has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	Shared
Memory Type	HBM	Shared
Memory Bandwidth	512 GB/s	System
Bus Width	4096-bit	System
L2 Cache	2 MB	8 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 12.2 (Arc Graphics 140T). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 140T). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs Xe Media Engine.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
Encoder	VCE 3.0	Xe Media Engine
Decoder	UVD 6.0	Xe Media Engine
Codecs	—	H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 Nano draws 175W versus the Arc Graphics 140T's 35W — a 133.3% difference. The Arc Graphics 140T is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 350W (Arc Graphics 140T). Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs Integrated. Card length: 152mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Arc Graphics 140T
TDP	175W	35W-80%
Recommended PSU	550W	350W-36%
Power Connector	1x 8-pin	Integrated
Length	152mm	0mm
Height	—	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	—	85°C
Perf/Watt	26.3	128.6+389%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the Arc Graphics 140T launched at $350 and now averages $300. The Radeon R9 Nano costs 33.3% less ($100 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 15.0 (Arc Graphics 140T) — the Radeon R9 Nano offers 53.3% better value. The Arc Graphics 140T is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2015).