Radeon R9 Nano vs Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280
Radeon R9 Nano
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280
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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.4% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (3 GB vs 2 GB). 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 | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (278mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 holds the technical lead. Priced at $35 (vs $200), it costs 83% less, resulting in a 490.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+490.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅More affordable ($35) |
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 Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280
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.
Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280
The Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 31 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1250 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,765 points. Launch price was $449.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 Nano scores 4,609 and the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 reaches 4,765 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Nano is built on GCN 3.0 while the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 1,792 (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280). Raw compute: 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 2.867 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1250 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,609 | 4,765+3% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 4096+129% | 1792 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.192 TFLOPS+186% | 2.867 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz+25% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 256+129% | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+127% | 0.44 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R9 Nano comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 has 3 GB. The Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 240 GB/s (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280) — a 113.3% advantage for the Radeon R9 Nano. Bus width: 4096-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 0.75 MB (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280) — the Radeon R9 Nano has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 3 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 GB/s+113% | 240 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 4096-bit+967% | 384-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+167% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 12 (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs UVD 3.2.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.0 | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | UVD 6.0 | UVD 3.2 |
| Codecs | — | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 Nano draws 175W versus the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280's 200W — a 13.3% difference. The Radeon R9 Nano is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 500W (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280). Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs 2x 6-pin. Card length: 152mm vs 278mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 175W-13% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 550W | 500W-9% |
| Power Connector | 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | 152mm | 278mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 26.3+11% | 23.8 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 launched at $279 and now averages $35. The Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 costs 82.5% less ($165 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 136.1 (Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280) — the Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 offers 491.7% better value. The Radeon R9 Nano is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | Radeon R9 Nano | Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $649 | $279-57% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $35-83% |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.0 | 136.1+492% |
| Codename | Fiji | Tahiti |
| Release | August 27 2015 | January 31 2012 |
| Ranking | #306 | #454 |
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 Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280
