G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Radeon R9 370

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $500 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Delivers 346.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Draws 110W instead of 175W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌45.4% longer card at 221mm vs 152mm.

Radeon R9 Nano

2015

Why buy it

✅Measures 152mm instead of 221mm, a 69mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
335.6% HIGHER MSRP
$649 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 31.7 G3D/$ ($649 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌59.1% higher power demand at 175W vs 110W.

Radeon R9 370

2015

Radeon R9 Nano

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $500 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Delivers 346.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Draws 110W instead of 175W, a 65W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Measures 152mm instead of 221mm, a 69mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌45.4% longer card at 221mm vs 152mm.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
335.6% HIGHER MSRP
$649 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 31.7 G3D/$ ($649 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌59.1% higher power demand at 175W vs 110W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 370 better than Radeon R9 Nano?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 4,722 vs 4,609 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 370 is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling, plus much lower power draw (110W vs 175W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon R9 370 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 2 GB. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon R9 370 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $149 MSRP. Radeon R9 370 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon R9 370 is about $500 cheaper on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $649 MSRP, and you are getting 2.5% higher G3D Mark. Moving to $149 MSRP gets you lower power draw (110W vs 175W), and FSR upscaling.

Is Radeon R9 Nano still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. Radeon R9 Nano is still a strong gaming card in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. Price is really the swing factor here. If you find it at or below $649 MSRP, it remains a very sensible buy. Radeon R9 370 is still the safer recommendation for most fresh builds because it offers a cleaner overall package with FSR upscaling.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon R9 370 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 Nano Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	100 FPS	116 FPS
medium	85 FPS	99 FPS
high	68 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	40 FPS	49 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	93 FPS
medium	75 FPS	78 FPS
high	53 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	34 FPS
4K
low	27 FPS	33 FPS
medium	26 FPS	30 FPS
high	17 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	19 FPS

Open Radeon R9 370 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	118 FPS	207 FPS
medium	87 FPS	166 FPS
high	67 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	41 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	67 FPS	156 FPS
medium	45 FPS	124 FPS
high	33 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	22 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	24 FPS	98 FPS
medium	16 FPS	80 FPS
high	13 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	9 FPS	49 FPS

Open Radeon R9 370 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	212 FPS	207 FPS
medium	170 FPS	166 FPS
high	142 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	106 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	159 FPS	156 FPS
medium	127 FPS	124 FPS
high	106 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	106 FPS	104 FPS
medium	85 FPS	83 FPS
high	71 FPS	69 FPS
ultra	53 FPS	52 FPS

Open Radeon R9 370 Open Radeon R9 Nano

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	136 FPS	196 FPS
medium	109 FPS	164 FPS
high	94 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	99 FPS	137 FPS
medium	82 FPS	117 FPS
high	71 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	55 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	59 FPS	82 FPS
medium	45 FPS	68 FPS
high	35 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	42 FPS

Open Radeon R9 370 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 370 and Radeon R9 Nano

Radeon R9 370

The Radeon R9 370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 975 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 110W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,722 points.

Radeon R9 Nano

The Radeon R9 Nano is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 27 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 175W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,609 points. Launch price was $649.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 370 scores 4,722 and the Radeon R9 Nano reaches 4,609 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 370 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon R9 Nano uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon R9 370) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano). Raw compute: 2.496 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 370) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano). Boost clocks: 975 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
G3D Mark Score	4,722+2%	4,609
Architecture	GCN 1.0	GCN 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1280	4096+220%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.496 TFLOPS	8.192 TFLOPS+228%
Boost Clock	975 MHz	1000 MHz+3%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	80	256+220%
L1 Cache	0.38 MB	1 MB+163%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	2 MB+300%
Frame Generation	FSR upscaling	FSR upscaling

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
Upscaling Tech	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon R9 370 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 Nano has 2 GB. The Radeon R9 370 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 179 GB/s (Radeon R9 370) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Nano) — a 186% advantage for the Radeon R9 Nano. Bus width: 256-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 370) vs 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 Nano has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	HBM
Memory Bandwidth	179 GB/s	512 GB/s+186%
Bus Width	256-bit	4096-bit+1500%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	2 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_1) (Radeon R9 370) vs 12 (Radeon R9 Nano). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
DirectX	12 (11_1)	12
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 370) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano). Decoder: UVD 4.0 vs UVD 6.0.

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
Encoder	VCE 1.0	VCE 3.0
Decoder	UVD 4.0	UVD 6.0
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,MVC	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 370 draws 110W versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 175W — a 45.6% difference. The Radeon R9 370 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (Radeon R9 370) vs 550W (Radeon R9 Nano). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 221mm vs 152mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Radeon R9 370	Radeon R9 Nano
TDP	110W-37%	175W
Recommended PSU	450W-18%	550W
Power Connector	1x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
Length	221mm	152mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	75	—
Perf/Watt	42.9+63%	26.3

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 370 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649. The Radeon R9 370 costs 77% less ($500 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 31.7 (Radeon R9 370) vs 7.1 (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 370 offers 346.5% better value.