AMD
Radeon R9 Nano vs Intel Arc A310
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc A310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared R9 Nano and Arc A310 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R9 Nano outperforms Arc A310 by ~24% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+24%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon R9 Nano (~2%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider R9 Nano
- Higher catalog performance index
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Arc A310
- More graphics memory
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
IntelPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
4133
78100
100100
5060
Graphics card ranking
Positions 117–122of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon R9 Nano
66 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Radeon R9 Nano
Price $128.00Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
41Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
36Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
78
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
54Better
53
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Length
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Transistor countBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares R9 Nano and Arc A310 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
R9 NanoArc A310
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
188 FPS
165 FPS
1080p Ultra
132 FPS
116 FPS
1440p Ultra
87 FPS
62 FPS
4K Ultra
35 FPS
22 FPS
Counter-Strike 2R9 Nano188 FPSArc A310165 FPSR9 Nano132 FPSArc A310116 FPSR9 Nano87 FPSArc A31062 FPSR9 Nano35 FPSArc A31022 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077R9 Nano122 FPSArc A310106 FPSR9 Nano105 FPSArc A31092 FPSR9 Nano63 FPSArc A31045 FPSR9 Nano23 FPSArc A31015 FPS
Forza Horizon 5R9 Nano153 FPSArc A310134 FPSR9 Nano99 FPSArc A31087 FPSR9 Nano78 FPSArc A31056 FPSR9 Nano51 FPSArc A31033 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyR9 Nano99 FPSArc A31087 FPSR9 Nano83 FPSArc A31073 FPSR9 Nano56 FPSArc A31041 FPSR9 Nano24 FPSArc A31015 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100413322%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10041422%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10044417%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100506018%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1007810025%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10045450%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10045442%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10044417%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10046484%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10044417%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.012.2
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedXeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 2.1OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 3.0Xe-HPG
Process node28 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20152022
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count8900 millionBetter7200 million
Die size596 mm²157 mm²Better
Shader units / cores4096Better768
Base clock1000 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock1000 MHz2000 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 4x8
Length154 mmVaries by board
ThicknessDual-slotSingle-slot
Recommended PSU450 W200 WBetter
Power connector8 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 1.4aHDMI 2.1
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.2mini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors44
Max resolution4096 × 21607680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM4 GB HBM4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeHBMGDDR6
Memory bus4096 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS8.192Better2.688
Other comparisons
GTX 1650NVIDIAReviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (6)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: R9 Nano or Arc A310?+
R9 Nano has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 Nano offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
R9 Nano is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
R9 Nano is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
R9 Nano offers more overall performance, while R9 Nano offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
R9 Nano is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 Nano is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
R9 Nano leads in combined 1440p performance. R9 Nano can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
R9 Nano is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Arc A310 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Arc A310 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to R9 Nano if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.