AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

VS

AMD Radeon R9 Nano AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT

We compared two Desktop platform GPUs: 4GB VRAM Radeon R9 Nano and 16GB VRAM Radeon RX 6950 XT to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.

Main Differences

AMD Radeon R9 Nano 's Advantages

Lower TDP (175W vs 335W)

AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT 's Advantages

Released 6 years and 9 months late

Boost Clock2310MHz

More VRAM (16GB vs 4GB)

Larger VRAM bandwidth (576.0GB/s vs 512.0GB/s)

1024 additional rendering cores

Score

Benchmark

FP32 (float)

Radeon R9 Nano

8.192 TFLOPS

Radeon RX 6950 XT +188%

23.65 TFLOPS

3DMark Time Spy

Radeon R9 Nano

4607

Radeon RX 6950 XT +365%

21448

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2160p

Radeon R9 Nano

28

Radeon RX 6950 XT +207%

86

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1440p

Radeon R9 Nano

60

Radeon RX 6950 XT +160%

156

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1080p

Radeon R9 Nano

75

Radeon RX 6950 XT +185%

214

Radeon R9 Nano

VS

Radeon RX 6950 XT

Graphics Card

Aug 2015

Release Date

May 2022

Pirate Islands

Generation

Navi II

Desktop

Type

Desktop

PCIe 3.0 x16

Bus Interface

PCIe 4.0 x16

Clock Speeds

-

Base Clock

1860 MHz

-

Boost Clock

2310 MHz

500 MHz

Memory Clock

2250 MHz

Memory

4GB

Memory Size

16GB

HBM

Memory Type

GDDR6

4096bit

Memory Bus

256bit

512.0GB/s

Bandwidth

576.0GB/s

Render Config

-

SM Count

-

64

Compute Units

80

4096

Shading Units

5120

256

TMUs

320

64

ROPs

128

-

Tensor Cores

-

RT Cores

80

16 KB (per CU)

L1 Cache

128 KB per Array

2 MB

L2 Cache

4 MB

Theoretical Performance

64.00 GPixel/s

Pixel Rate

295.7 GPixel/s

256.0 GTexel/s

Texture Rate

739.2 GTexel/s

8.192 TFLOPS

FP16 (half)

47.31 TFLOPS

8.192 TFLOPS

FP32 (float)

23.65 TFLOPS

512.0 GFLOPS

FP64 (double)

1478 GFLOPS

Graphics Processor

Fiji

GPU Name

Navi 21

Fiji XT CA (215-0862120)

GPU Variant

Navi 21 KXTX (215-121000289)

GCN 3.0

Architecture

RDNA 2.0

TSMC

Foundry

TSMC

28 nm

Process Size

7 nm

8.9 billion

Transistors

26.8 billion

596 mm²

Die Size

520 mm²

Board Design

175W

TDP

335W

450 W

Suggested PSU

700 W

1x HDMI 1.4a 3x DisplayPort 1.2

Outputs

1x HDMI 2.1 2x DisplayPort 1.4a

1x 8-pin

Power Connectors

2x 8-pin

Graphics Features

12 (12_0)

DirectX

12 Ultimate (12_2)

4.6

OpenGL

4.6

2.0

OpenCL

2.1

1.2

Vulkan

1.3

-

CUDA

-

6.3

Shader Model

6.5

Related GPU Comparisons

1

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 vs AMD Radeon R9 Nano

2

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs ATI Radeon HD 4870 Mac Edition

3

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 OEM

4

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs AMD Radeon R9 Nano

5

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 56

6

AMD Radeon RX 5500 OEM vs AMD Radeon R9 Nano

7

AMD Radeon HD 7470 OEM vs AMD Radeon R9 Nano

8

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs ATI Radeon HD 4670

9

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra

10

AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Mac Edition

Related News

1

Concerns Raised by Unstable 13th/14th Gen Core CPUs: Motherboard Manufacturers Worry About Impact on Arrow Lake Release and Sales

2

Do You Really Know What a "Rendering Engine" Is? Read This Article to Understand All About It

3

New AMD Zen5 Ryzen 9000 Motherboards X870E/X870 to Adopt USB4! But You’ll Have to Wait Two More Months

4

Surpassing RTX 2050! Intel's Next-Gen Integrated Graphics Benchmark Closely Approaches AMD

5

New Benchmarks for AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 Revealed: Single-Core Parity with R9 7945HX3D, Multi-Core Still Lower

6

X3D Performance Beyond Words! AMD Ryzen 7 9700X May Unlock Power Consumption: From 65W to 120W

7

First Benchmark Leak of Intel Core Ultra 7 268V: Single-Core Performance Soars by 20%, Still Lags Behind AMD

8

NVIDIA Grace CPU Benchmark Results Released, Stunning Performance

9

Minisforum Launches UM890 Pro Mini PC with R9 8945HS and Dual USB4 Ports

10

Does the Apple A18 Neural Engine Boast Superior Performance? Computational Power May Surpass M4 Chip