Technology content trusted in North America and globally since 1999
8,588 Reviews & Articles | 67,095 News Posts

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead (Page 5)

By Anthony Garreffa on Sep 10, 2015 07:00 am CDT - 1 min, 58 secs reading time for this page
Rating: 90%Manufacturer: AMD

3DMark Fire Strike - 1080p

3DMark has been a staple benchmark for years now, all the way back to when The Matrix was released and Futuremark had bullet time inspired benchmarks. 3DMark is the perfect tool to see if your system - most important, your CPU and GPU - is performing as it should. You can search results for your GPU, to see if it falls in line with other systems based on similar hardware.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 50 | TweakTown.com

3DMark Fire Strike Extreme - 1440p

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 51 | TweakTown.com

3DMark Fire Strike Ultra - 4K

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 71 | TweakTown.com

Heaven - 1080p

Heaven is an intensive GPU benchmark that really pushes your silicon to its limits. It's another favorite of ours as it has some great scaling for multi-GPU testing, and it's great for getting your GPU to 100% for power and noise testing.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 52 | TweakTown.com

Heaven - 1440p

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 53 | TweakTown.com

Heaven - 4K

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 72 | TweakTown.com

Heaven - 3440x1440

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card Review - The Fury X Is Dead 39 | TweakTown.com

As we explained in our multiple introductions into the R9 Nano earlier in this review, the R9 Nano falls into the third-fastest Fiji-powered card, so we should expect the Nano to be slightly slower than the Fury, which is slower than the Fury X.

Starting with 3DMark at 1080p, we see that the R9 Nano falls right into this spot, where it is 9% faster than the overclocked R9 390X, and 13% slower than the Fury X. Increasing up to the 1440p run of 3DMark, the R9 Nano is 14% slower than the Fury X, while at 4K it is 16% slower.

Okay, it's time for some Heaven. Starting with 1080p, the R9 Nano loses to the Fury by only 1FPS, and to the R9 Fury X by 7FPS, or 9%. At 1440p, the R9 Nano is neck-and-neck with the Fury, both on 53FPS, while the Fury X slides by just... and we mean just, at 55FPS. At 4K, the R9 Nano loses to the Fury once again by a single frame per second, and to the Fury X by 4FPS, or 17%.

PRICING: You can find products similar to this one for sale below.

USUnited States: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.com

UKUnited Kingdom: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.co.uk

AUAustralia: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.com.au

CACanada: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.ca

DEDeutschland: Finde andere Technik- und Computerprodukte wie dieses auf Amazon.de

Anthony Garreffa

ABOUT THE AUTHOR - Anthony Garreffa

Anthony is a long time PC enthusiast with a passion of hate for games to be built around consoles. With FPS gaming since the pre-Quake days, where you were insulted if you used a mouse to aim, he has been addicted to gaming and hardware ever since. Working in IT retail for 10 years gave him great experience with high-end, custom-built PCs. His addiction to GPU technology is unwavering, and with next-gen NVIDIA GPUs about to launch alongside 4K 144Hz HDR G-Sync gaming monitors and BFGDs (65-inch 4K 120Hz HDR G-Sync TVs) there has never been a time to be more excited about technology.

We openly invite the companies who provide us with review samples / who are mentioned or discussed to express their opinion. If any company representative wishes to respond, we will publish the response here. Please contact us if you wish to respond.

Related Tags