Radeon R9 Nano vs Radeon Sky 500

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.

Radeon R9 Nano vs Radeon Sky 500 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Radeon R9 Nano vs Radeon Sky 500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

Radeon R9 Nano

2015

Why buy it

✅42.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌2015 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
29.8% HIGHER MSRP
$649 MSRPvs$500 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 9.4 G3D/$ ($649 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
❌16.7% higher power demand at 175W vs 150W.

Radeon Sky 500

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $149 less on MSRP ($500 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Delivers 33% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.4 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Draws 150W instead of 175W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 Nano across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌2013 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon R9 Nano is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 42.1% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward Radeon Sky 500 instead at 4,723 vs 4,609, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon R9 Nano is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: a newer 2015 generation instead of 2013. That makes it the less risky pick as game demands keep moving.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon Sky 500 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $149 cheaper on MSRP at $500 vs $649, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 33% (9.4 vs 7.1), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon Sky 500 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, Radeon R9 Nano has the stronger long-term case.

Radeon R9 Nano vs Radeon Sky 500 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 Sky 500

The Radeon Sky 500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 27 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 950 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,723 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 Nano scores 4,609 and the Radeon Sky 500 reaches 4,723 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Nano is built on GCN 3.0 while the Radeon Sky 500 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 1,280 (Radeon Sky 500). Raw compute: 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 2.432 TFLOPS (Radeon Sky 500).

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Radeon Sky 500
G3D Mark Score	4,609	4,723+2%
Architecture	GCN 3.0	GCN 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	4096+220%	1280
Compute (TFLOPS)	8.192 TFLOPS+237%	2.432 TFLOPS
ROPs	64+100%	32
TMUs	256+220%	80
L1 Cache	1 MB+223%	0.31 MB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB
Frame Generation	FSR upscaling	FSR upscaling

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Radeon Sky 500
Upscaling Tech	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 2 GB of video memory. Memory bus width is 4096-bit on the Radeon R9 Nano and 64-bit on the Radeon Sky 500. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon Sky 500) — the Radeon R9 Nano has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Radeon Sky 500
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	HBM	GDDR5
Bus Width	4096-bit+6300%	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 Nano draws 175W versus the Radeon Sky 500's 150W — a 15.4% difference. The Radeon Sky 500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 350W (Radeon Sky 500). Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Radeon Sky 500
TDP	175W	150W-14%
Recommended PSU	550W	350W-36%
Power Connector	1x 8-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	152mm	—
Slots	2	—
Perf/Watt	26.3	31.5+20%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Radeon R9 Nano came in at $649, while the Radeon Sky 500 launched at $500. On MSRP, Radeon Sky 500 was 23% cheaper ($149 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 7.1 (Radeon R9 Nano) vs 9.4 (Radeon Sky 500) — the Radeon Sky 500 offers 32.4% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R9 Nano (2015 vs 2013).

Feature	Radeon R9 Nano	Radeon Sky 500
MSRP	$649	$500-23%
Performance per Dollar	7.1	9.4+32%
Codename	Fiji	Pitcairn
Release	August 27 2015	March 27 2013
Ranking	#306	#455

Search Radeon R9 Nano on Amazon

Search Radeon Sky 500 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.