Winner
AMD Radeon RX 580
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon RX 580 based on its .
See full details Radeon RX 580 vs R9 Nano |
Released April, 2017
AMD Radeon RX 580
- 1.3 GHz
- 8 GB GDDR5
7.5 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Aug, 2017)So, if you have 16GB of RAM you could dedicate 4-6GB of it, so it would - in a way - combine with the 8GB of HBM2 for up to 14GB of VRAM.
VS
Released August, 2015
AMD Radeon R9 Nano
- 1 GHz
- 4 GB
8.4 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!VRM temperatures are good, thanks to the extra heatpipe providing extra cooling.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 580 vs R9 Nano among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 8.4 | Overall Score |
| | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 8,000 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | 8x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher clock speed | 1,257 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
| More memory | 8,192 MB | vs | 4,096 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Much higher memory clock speed | 2,000 MHz | vs | 500 MHz | 4x higher memory clock speed | |||
| Slightly better cloud gate factor score | 22.5 | vs | 21.71 | Around 5% better cloud gate factor score | |||
| |||||||
| Much wider memory bus | 4,096 bit | vs | 256 bit | 16x wider memory bus | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 8,192 GFLOPS | vs | 6,175 GFLOPS | Around 35% better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly more shading units | 4,096 | vs | 2,304 | 1792 more shading units | |||
| Significantly more texture mapping units | 256 | vs | 144 | 112 more texture mapping units | |||
| Higher texture rate | 256 GTexel/s | vs | 193 GTexel/s | Around 35% higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly more render output processors | 64 | vs | 32 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 64 GPixel/s | vs | 42.88 GPixel/s | Around 50% higher pixel rate | |||
| Significantly more compute units | 64 | vs | 36 | 28 more compute units | |||
Report a correction
