R9 Nano गुणवत्ता i7-4790K सेटिंग्स पर अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता बेंचमार्क के साथ

1440p पर, R9 Nano अल्ट्रा में बहुत ज्यादा सब कुछ पर 50-60 एफपीएस मारा, बस antialiasing, कम परिवेश रोड़ा और नीचे छाया के बिना कर सकते हैं । तय है कि एक उच्च अंत में इतना पैसा निवेश की तरह R9 Nano GPU सावधान सोचा की आवश्यकता है । वर्तमान 4096 एमबी रैम के साथ R9 Nano , अधिक आधुनिक खेल में बहुत कुछ स्मृति से संबंधित अड़चनों हो सकता है ।

वर्तमान मूल्य सूची देखें

R9 Nano गुणवत्ता i7-4790K सेटिंग्स पर अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता बेंचमार्क के साथ

अपनी टिप्पणियाँ साझा करें 1

	AMD Radeon R9 Nano
मूल्य	₹ 108,773.1
साल	2015
अधिकतम दर्ज तापमान	73C
मैक्स फैन शोर	45.8dB
बिजली की आपूर्ति की सिफारिश की	525W
बेंचमार्क सीपीयू	Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz ($306.99)
एफपीएस पर CPU प्रभाव	+ 0.0 FPS
एफपीएस% पर CPU प्रभाव	0.0%
बेंचमार्क गुणवत्ता सेटिंग्स	Ultra Quality Settings
औसत 1080p प्रदर्शन	73.1 FPS
औसत 1440p प्रदर्शन	54.7 FPS
औसत 4k प्रदर्शन	32.7 FPS
स्मृति	4 GB
1080p लागत प्रति फ्रेम	₹ 631.7
1440 पी प्रति फ्रेम लागत	₹ 843.7
प्रति फ्रेम 4K लागत	₹ 1,412.1
श्रृंखला	R9 Nano
popover.html	49/100	स्वीकार्य

से तुलना

परिवर्तित CPU करने के लिए

इच्छित गुणवत्ता सेटिंग

R9 Nano R9 390 तुलना में बहुत अधिक महंगा है क्योंकि इसमें लागत ₹ 46169.9 । इसकी तुलना R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, जो मूल रूप से ₹ 23405.1, ₹ 30519.1 की कीमत पर आया था। इस बीच, NVIDIA निकटतम समकक्ष कार्ड GTX 980 जिसकी लागत ₹ 39055.9 । दुर्भाग्य से, गेमिंग प्रदर्शन बहुत प्रभावशाली नहीं था। यहां तक कि अगर R9 Nano लगातार R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X पर फ्रेम रेट बढ़ता है, तो अपग्रेड को सही ठहराने के लिए ज्यादा फायदा नहीं है।

चाहे यह एक उचित उन्नयन हो, यह इस बात पर निर्भर करता है कि आप किस ग्राफिक्स कार्ड से अपग्रेड कर रहे हैं। R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X उपयोगकर्ता इस R9 Nano लिए अधिक भुगतान करने के बाद फ्रेम दर में उल्लेखनीय वृद्धि नहीं देखेंगे। इसी तरह, GTX 980 के GTX 780 ग्राफिक्स कार्ड रखने वालों के पास अभी टीमों के कूदने का कोई कारण नहीं होगा। 1080p Full HD, हम Monster Hunter: World, Forza Horizon 4, Final Fantasy XV, GreedFall, Battlefield V को 61 एफपीएस से 65 एफपीएस और खेलने में सक्षम थे, फ्रेम रेट्स को 63 एफपीएस के आसपास 63 ।

1440p Quad HD, हम Call of Duty Modern Warfare, World War Z, Strange Brigade, Fallout 76 को 63 एफपीएस से 70 एफपीएस और खेलने में सक्षम थे, फ्रेम रेट्स को 65 एफपीएस के आसपास 65 ।

Compare R9 Nano Variants Performance in अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता

सेटिंग में अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता खेल प्रदर्शन

गुणवत्ता सेटिंग्स परिवर्तित करें

संकल्प 1920x1080

1% Low [Min FPS] Average FPS

साल	खेल	फ़्रेम प्रति सेकंड
2019	Apex Legends	64 72.0
2019	Anthem	41 46.4
2019	Far Cry New Dawn	61 68.0
2019	Resident Evil 2	79 87.9
2019	Metro Exodus	35 39.1
2019	World War Z	78 87.0
2019	Gears of War 5	51 57.0
2019	F1 2019	64 71.5
2019	GreedFall	57 64.4
2019	Borderlands 3	40 45.2
2019	Call of Duty Modern Warfare	78 87.0
2019	Red Dead Redemption 2	30 33.5
2019	Need For Speed: Heat	47 52.6
2018	Call of Duty: Black Ops 4	71 79.0
2018	Assassin's Creed Odyssey	33 37.0
2018	Final Fantasy XV	56 63.0
2018	Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 50.0
2018	Forza Horizon 4	56 63.0
2018	Fallout 76	61 68.0
2018	Hitman 2	47 53.0
2018	Just Cause 4	50 56.5
2018	Monster Hunter: World	54 60.9
2018	Strange Brigade	82 91.8
2018	Battlefield V	58 65.0
2017	Assassin's Creed Origins	47 53.0
2017	Destiny 2	91 102.0
2017	PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	47 53.0
2017	Fortnite Battle Royale	57 63.7
2017	Need For Speed: Payback	70 78.3
2017	For Honor	93 104.4
2017	Project CARS 2	66 73.9
2017	Forza Motorsport 7	80 89.6
2016	Ashes of the Singularity	49 55.2
2016	Hitman	75 83.8
2016	Rise of the Tomb Raider	64 71.2
2016	The Division	58 64.6
2016	Overwatch	88 98.7
2016	Dishonored 2	48 53.9
2015	DiRT Rally	102 114.2
2015	Grand Theft Auto V	55 62.1
2015	The Witcher 3	53 59.2
2015	Total War: Attila	50 55.9
2015	Rocket League	274 304.5
2015	Need For Speed	75 84.4
2015	Project CARS	72 80.9
2015	Rainbow Six Siege	133 147.9
2014	Civilization: Beyond Earth	101 113.2
2014	Dragon Age: Inquisition	71 79.6
2014	Far Cry 4	67 75.0
2014	GRID Autosport	72 80.1
2014	Shadow of Mordor	92 103.0
2014	The Talos Principle	102 113.9
2013	Crysis 3	63 70.2
2013	Battlefield 4	79 88.8
2012	Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	187 208.8
2009	League of Legends	352 391.5

संकल्प 2560x1440

1% Low [Min FPS] Average FPS

साल	खेल	फ़्रेम प्रति सेकंड
2019	Apex Legends	42 53.6
2019	Anthem	29 36.8
2019	Far Cry New Dawn	42 52.8
2019	Resident Evil 2	47 59.2
2019	Metro Exodus	24 30.4
2019	World War Z	50 63.5
2019	Gears of War 5	33 41.3
2019	F1 2019	40 50.6
2019	GreedFall	37 46.5
2019	Borderlands 3	25 31.8
2019	Call of Duty Modern Warfare	50 62.6
2019	Red Dead Redemption 2	21 27.4
2019	Need For Speed: Heat	33 41.3
2018	Call of Duty: Black Ops 4	37 47.0
2018	Assassin's Creed Odyssey	23 29.0
2018	Final Fantasy XV	36 45.0
2018	Shadow of the Tomb Raider	28 35.0
2018	Forza Horizon 4	43 54.0
2018	Fallout 76	56 70.0
2018	Hitman 2	28 35.0
2018	Just Cause 4	33 41.8
2018	Monster Hunter: World	34 42.6
2018	Strange Brigade	51 63.9
2018	Battlefield V	40 51.0
2017	Assassin's Creed Origins	33 42.0
2017	Destiny 2	70 88.0
2017	PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	32 40.0
2017	Fortnite Battle Royale	33 41.3
2017	Need For Speed: Payback	45 56.5
2017	For Honor	48 60.9
2017	Project CARS 2	41 52.2
2017	Forza Motorsport 7	64 80.9
2016	Ashes of the Singularity	39 49.0
2016	Hitman	51 64.4
2016	Rise of the Tomb Raider	40 50.7
2016	The Division	38 48.5
2016	Overwatch	54 67.9
2016	Dishonored 2	36 46.1
2015	DiRT Rally	65 82.3
2015	Grand Theft Auto V	35 44.6
2015	The Witcher 3	36 45.9
2015	Total War: Attila	31 39.8
2015	Rocket League	104 130.5
2015	Need For Speed	52 65.2
2015	Project CARS	49 61.8
2015	Rainbow Six Siege	76 95.7
2014	Civilization: Beyond Earth	72 90.2
2014	Dragon Age: Inquisition	45 56.8
2014	Far Cry 4	55 68.8
2014	GRID Autosport	65 81.3
2014	Shadow of Mordor	60 75.0
2014	The Talos Principle	67 84.6
2013	Crysis 3	37 46.8
2013	Battlefield 4	48 60.6
2012	Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	139 174.0
2009	League of Legends	174 217.5

संकल्प 3840x2160

1% Low [Min FPS] Average FPS

साल	खेल	फ़्रेम प्रति सेकंड
2019	Apex Legends	22 32.0
2019	Anthem	14 20.0
2019	Far Cry New Dawn	19 28.0
2019	Resident Evil 2	20 29.1
2019	Metro Exodus	13 19.1
2019	World War Z	25 36.5
2019	Gears of War 5	18 26.1
2019	F1 2019	22 32.2
2019	GreedFall	13 19.1
2019	Borderlands 3	11 16.5
2019	Call of Duty Modern Warfare	26 37.4
2019	Red Dead Redemption 2	12 17.4
2019	Need For Speed: Heat	18 26.1
2018	Call of Duty: Black Ops 4	23 33.0
2018	Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 20.0
2018	Final Fantasy XV	18 26.0
2018	Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 18.0
2018	Forza Horizon 4	24 35.0
2018	Fallout 76	27 39.0
2018	Hitman 2	14 20.0
2018	Just Cause 4	15 21.8
2018	Monster Hunter: World	14 20.4
2018	Strange Brigade	24 34.8
2018	Battlefield V	16 24.0
2017	Assassin's Creed Origins	18 27.0
2017	Destiny 2	30 44.0
2017	PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds	16 23.0
2017	Fortnite Battle Royale	15 22.4
2017	Need For Speed: Payback	27 39.1
2017	For Honor	21 30.4
2017	Project CARS 2	30 43.5
2017	Forza Motorsport 7	47 67.9
2016	Ashes of the Singularity	26 38.0
2016	Hitman	26 37.2
2016	Rise of the Tomb Raider	19 27.6
2016	The Division	19 27.7
2016	Overwatch	24 35.0
2016	Dishonored 2	25 36.5
2015	DiRT Rally	32 46.6
2015	Grand Theft Auto V	15 22.1
2015	The Witcher 3	19 28.0
2015	Total War: Attila	24 35.5
2015	Rocket League	42 60.9
2015	Need For Speed	30 43.5
2015	Project CARS	30 43.5
2015	Rainbow Six Siege	31 44.4
2014	Civilization: Beyond Earth	40 57.7
2014	Dragon Age: Inquisition	21 30.8
2014	Far Cry 4	26 37.6
2014	GRID Autosport	37 54.2
2014	Shadow of Mordor	29 42.0
2014	The Talos Principle	33 48.4
2013	Crysis 3	16 23.3
2013	Battlefield 4	31 44.9
2012	Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	109 156.6
2009	League of Legends	60 87.0

R9 Nano with i7-4790K at 1080p and अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता settings

R9 Nano with i7-4790K at 1440p and अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता settings

R9 Nano with i7-4790K at 4K and अल्ट्रा गुणवत्ता settings

प्रतिस्पर्धियों के खिलाफ तुलना

AMD Radeon RX 590
2018 8GB ₹ 15,224
14% faster

Compare

AMD Radeon RX 570
2017 4GB ₹ 8,750
18% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon RX 580
2017 8GB ₹ 10,742
2% faster

Compare

AMD Radeon RX 470
2016 4GB ₹ 24,330
29% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon RX 480
2016 8GB ₹ 28,385
16% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
2016 6GB ₹ 11,311
6% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB
2016 3GB ₹ 12,094
11% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
2015 6GB ₹ 44,036
19% faster

Compare

AMD Radeon R9 390
2015 8GB ₹ 33,080
16% slower

Compare

setupad-728x90.html

AMD Radeon R9 390X
2015 8GB ₹ 35,214
9% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon R9 FURY
2015 4GB ₹ 39,056
6% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon R9 FURY X
2015 4GB ₹ 46,170
10% faster

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK
2014 6GB ₹ 71,069
3% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
2014 4GB ₹ 17,714
4% faster

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
2014 4GB ₹ 31,942
13% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
2013 3GB ₹ 29,167
16% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
2013 6GB ₹ 46,241
4% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
2013 3GB ₹ 25,255
24% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon HD 7990
2013 3GB ₹ 71,069
8% faster

Compare

AMD Radeon R9 290
2013 4GB ₹ 22,053
19% slower

Compare

AMD Radeon R9 290X
2013 4GB ₹ 28,385
14% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
2012 2GB ₹ 34,503
30% slower

Compare

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
2012 2GB ₹ 31,231
15% faster

Compare

AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition
2012 3GB ₹ 21,271
14% slower

Compare

R9 Nano विनिर्देशों

R9 Nano Board Design

Board Number	C882
Length	6 inches 152 mm
Outputs	1x HDMI3x DisplayPort
Power Connectors	1x 8-pin
Slot Width	Dual-slot
TDP	175 W

R9 Nano Clock Speeds

GPU Clock	1000 MHz
Memory Clock	500 MHz 1000 MHz effective

R9 Nano Graphics Card

Bus Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16
Generation	Pirate Islands (R9 300)
Launch Price	649 USD
Production	Active
Release Date	Aug 27th, 2015

R9 Nano Graphics Features

DirectX	12.0 (12_0)
OpenCL	2
OpenGL	4.5
Shader Model	6
Vulkan	1.1.82

R9 Nano Graphics Processor

Architecture	GCN 3.0
Die Size	596 mm²
GPU Name	Fiji
GPU Variant	Fiji XT CA (215-0862120)
Process Size	28 nm
Transistors	8,900 million

R9 Nano Memory

Bandwidth	512.0 GB/s
Memory Bus	4096 bit
Memory Size	4096 MB
Memory Type	HBM

R9 Nano Render Config

Compute Units	64
ROPs	64
Shading Units	4096
TMUs	256

R9 Nano Theoretical Performance

FP16 (half) performance	8,192 GFLOPS (1:1)
FP32 (float) performance	8,192 GFLOPS
FP64 (double) performance	512.0 GFLOPS (1:16)
Pixel Rate	64.00 GPixel/s
Texture Rate	256.0 GTexel/s

Critics Reviews

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano shows that you don’t always have to be the fastest to win the race. Some races are more of a marathon, and it’s more important to pace yourself well. MORE: Best Graphics ...

The Radeon R9 Nano is the fruition of AMD's gamble of integrating stacked high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and a 4,096 SP pixel-grinder into a compact multi-chip module that eliminates the need for external memory chips, freeing up large swathes of PCB area.

The new Radeon R9 Nano is the little brother to the existing AMD Radeon R9 Fury cards – in water-cooled 'X' and air-cooled standard models – and deserves that distinction in more ways than one.

AMD seems to have hit all the cues it set out to with the Radeon R9 Nano. This card is ridiculously tiny in light of other high-end GPUs, its power consumption characteristics are significantly ...

AMD's R9 Nano is a graphics card that serves its (very) niche high-end small form factor market well but its premium pricing makes it unaffordable to many small form factor system builders, and ...

AMD's R9 Nano is a hell of a little graphics card, delivering near-R9 Fury X performance in a compact mini-ITX form-factor. It's also expensive—very expensive—at 0, matching the price of ...

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Nano is one of the most exciting graphics cards I’ve seen for years and, at only 6in long, it’s also one of the smallest. ... Verdict. AMD’s latest card is one of its ...

While AMD is pegging the Radeon R9 Nano as a luxury card, a component that isn't meant to be about value for money, rather it's all about getting the maximum performance for a small form factor PC ...

With the Radeon R9 Nano at the heart of our test rig, it consumed over 90 fewer watts than the Fury X--AMD's specified power ratings are in-line with our testing.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Overclocking Results Extra performance with the R9 Nano comes in two distinct areas, overclocking and power management. Interestingly, AMD lets users unlock the power management ...

The R9 Nano is stunningly powerful given its Mini-ITX-friendly form factor, and a true leap ahead for AMD. Just know that this is a specialized component meant for very tight, compact PCs, and ...

As it turns out, AMD's Radeon R9 Nano is a great piece of hardware; there's really nothing like it out there. That’s probably why AMD is setting its price at an eye-popping 9. A lack of ...

The Radeon R9 Nano is AMD's solution for all small-form-factor system builders that want to create a 4K-capable gaming PC in a tiny volume. Thanks to a new approach to power management, the card stays below 200 W at all times, while still delivering excellent framerates.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano - the Digital Foundry verdict The R9 Nano packs an unprecedented amount of rendering power into an absolutely tiny product, and possesses superb build quality.

AMD deserves some serious props for even creating the Radeon R9 Nano in the first place. This pint-sized powerhouse is the latest in a long line of AMD technical innovations that skate to where ...

We’ll have a full suite of Radeon R9 Nano benchmarks recorded in our ultra-high-end graphics test-bed, along with comparison numbers from an array of other high-end GPUs, a little later.

AMD’s itty-bitty Radeon R9 Nano isn’t due to launch until September 10, but a review unit landed on my doorstep today. Sadly, I can’t talk about its performance until then, but an AMD ...

The Radeon R9 Nano is a high-end graphics card by AMD, launched in August 2015. Built on the 28 nm process, and based on the Fiji graphics processor, in its Fiji XT CA variant, the card supports DirectX 12.0.

The AMD Radeon R9 Nano finished just behind the Radeon R9 Fury here, but well ahead of the R9 390 or similarly-sized GeForce GTX 970 mini (the Asus GeForce GTX 970 Direct-CU mini to be exact).

As it turns out, AMD's Radeon R9 Nano is a great piece of hardware; there's really nothing like it out there. That’s probably why AMD is setting its price at an eye-popping 9.

Meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum is the Radeon R9 Nano, which sees AMD push the limits on miniaturization and pack Fiji into a card just 6 inches long.