Radeon R9 Nano vs GRID T4-8Q
Radeon R9 Nano
Popular choices:
GRID T4-8Q
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. 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
Performance Per Dollar GRID T4-8Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID T4-8Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 Nano.
| Insight | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| 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. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 Nano holds the technical lead. Priced at $200 (vs $1,000), it costs 80% less, resulting in a 383.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+383.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($200) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,000) |
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 Radeon R9 Nano and GRID T4-8Q
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.
GRID T4-8Q
The GRID T4-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 722 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,762 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 Nano scores 4,609 and the GRID T4-8Q reaches 4,762 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Nano is built on GCN 3.0 while the GRID T4-8Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 1,536 (GRID T4-8Q). Raw compute: 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 2.218 TFLOPS (GRID T4-8Q).
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,609 | 4,762+3% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 4096+167% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.192 TFLOPS+269% | 2.218 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256+167% | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+79% | 0.56 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of video memory. Bus width: 4096-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 4096-bit+6300% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 Nano draws 175W versus the GRID T4-8Q's 100W — a 54.5% difference. The GRID T4-8Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 350W (GRID T4-8Q). Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 175W | 100W-43% |
| Recommended PSU | 550W | 350W-36% |
| Power Connector | 1x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 152mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 26.3 | 47.6+81% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the GRID T4-8Q launched at $2500 and now averages $1000. The Radeon R9 Nano costs 80% less ($800 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 4.8 (GRID T4-8Q) — the Radeon R9 Nano offers 379.2% better value.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | GRID T4-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $649-74% | $2500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200-80% | $1000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.0+379% | 4.8 |
| Codename | Fiji | GM204 |
| Release | August 27 2015 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #306 | #535 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 Nano and GRID T4-8Q
