The Radeon R9 Nano is a slower gaming GPU than the GeForce GTX 1070. We cannot compare value as at least one GPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the Radeon R9 Nano
The GeForce GTX 1070 is better in every way
Advantages of the GeForce GTX 1070
- A much faster GPU for gaming
- Consumes up to 14% less energy – 150 vs 175 Watts
- Up to 100% more VRAM memory – 8 vs 4 GB
Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1070 for Gaming
The GPU's performance in selected game and settings
Radeon R9 Nano
Aug 27th, 2015
Average FPS
72
88%
Min 1% FPS
37
86%
Price, €
Out of Stock
Value, €/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
GeForce GTX 1070
Jun 10th, 2016
Average FPS
82
100%
Min 1% FPS
43
100%
Price, €
€998
100%
Value, €/FPS
€12.17/FPS
100%
Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1070 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1070 in synthetic GPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1070 in core GPU performance specifications
Radeon R9 Nano
Aug 27th, 2015
Memory
4 GB
50%
Memory Bandwidth
512 GB/s
100%
Pixel Fillrate
64 GPixel/s
59%
Texture Fillrate
256 GTexel/s
100%
FP32
8.192 TFLOPS
100%
GeForce GTX 1070
Jun 10th, 2016
Memory
8 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
256.3 GB/s
50%
Pixel Fillrate
107.7 GPixel/s
100%
Texture Fillrate
202 GTexel/s
79%
FP32
6.463 TFLOPS
79%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
Radeon R9 Nano | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | GeForce GTX 1070 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Aug 27th, 2015 | Release Date | Jun 10th, 2016 |
| $649.00 | MSRP | $379.00 |
| Pirate Islands | Generation | GeForce 10 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 175 W | Power Consumption | 150 W |
| Memory | ||
| 4 GB | Memory Size | 8 GB |
| HBM | Memory Type | GDDR5 |
| 4096-bit | Memory Bus | 256-bit |
512 GB/s | Bandwidth | 256.3 GB/s |
| Theoretical Performance | ||
| 64 GPixel/s | Pixel Fillrate | 107.7 GPixel/s |
256 GTexel/s | Texture Fillrate | 202 GTexel/s |
8.192 TFLOPS | FP32 | 6.463 TFLOPS |
