Radeon R9 Fury vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU

M1 7-Core GPU M1 8-Core GPU M1 GPU M1 Max 24-Core GPU M1 Max 32-Core GPU M1 Pro 14-Core GPU M1 Pro 16-Core GPU
VS
Radeon R9 A375 Radeon R9 Fury Radeon R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X2 Radeon R9 Nano

Aggregate performance score

We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Radeon R9 Fury, including specs and performance data.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
2020
13.74

R9 Fury outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by an impressive 81% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8-Core GPU
R9 Fury R9 Fury

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking388231
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.18
Power efficiencyno data6.20
Architectureno dataGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameno dataFiji
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 November 2020 (4 years ago)10 July 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores83584
Compute unitsno data56
Core clock speed1278 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistorsno data8,900 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data275 Watt
Texture fill rateno data224.0
Floating-point processing powerno data7.168 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data224

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data​2x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire-+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeno dataHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
High bandwidth memory (HBM)no data+
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data4096 Bit
Memory clock speedno data500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
Number of Eyefinity displaysno data6
HDMI-+
DisplayPort support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration-+
CrossFire-+
FRTC-+
FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
LiquidVR-+
PowerTune-+
TressFX-+
TrueAudio-+
UVD-+
VCE-+
DDMA audiono data+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-+
Mantle-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD28
−221%
90
+221%
1440p55−60
−92.7%
106
+92.7%
4K24−27
−100%
48
+100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.10
1440pno data5.18
4Kno data11.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−100%
60−65
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−100%
60−65
+100%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−66.1%
90−95
+66.1%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−77.3%
75−80
+77.3%
Fortnite 70−75
−56.8%
110−120
+56.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−72.2%
90−95
+72.2%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−94.1%
65−70
+94.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
Valorant 110−120
−45.9%
160−170
+45.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−100%
60−65
+100%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−66.1%
90−95
+66.1%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−48.9%
268
+48.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Dota 2 85−90
−41.2%
120−130
+41.2%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−77.3%
75−80
+77.3%
Fortnite 70−75
−28.4%
95
+28.4%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−72.2%
90−95
+72.2%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−94.1%
65−70
+94.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
−73.5%
85−90
+73.5%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−96.2%
50−55
+96.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−95.7%
90−95
+95.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−168%
91
+168%
Valorant 110−120
−45.9%
160−170
+45.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−66.1%
90−95
+66.1%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−95.7%
45−50
+95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Dota 2 85−90
−52.9%
130
+52.9%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−77.3%
75−80
+77.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
−72.2%
90−95
+72.2%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
−94.1%
65−70
+94.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−8.7%
50
+8.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−35.3%
46
+35.3%
Valorant 110−120
−45.9%
160−170
+45.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+2.8%
72
−2.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−62.9%
158
+62.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−110%
40−45
+110%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−107%
30−35
+107%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−65.1%
170−180
+65.1%
Valorant 130−140
−46.7%
200−210
+46.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−85.7%
65−70
+85.7%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−109%
21−24
+109%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−89.3%
50−55
+89.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−93.5%
60−65
+93.5%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−82.6%
40−45
+82.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−95%
35−40
+95%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
−96.4%
55−60
+96.4%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−95.8%
47
+95.8%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−112%
36
+112%
Valorant 65−70
−95.7%
130−140
+95.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−100%
35−40
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Dota 2 45−50
−122%
102
+122%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−86.4%
40−45
+86.4%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−66.7%
20
+66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−108%
25
+108%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 109
+0%
109
+0%

This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and R9 Fury compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 221% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 93% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 100% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 3% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 168% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • R9 Fury is ahead in 65 tests (96%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.74 24.86
Recency 10 November 2020 10 July 2015
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm

Apple M1 8-Core GPU has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

R9 Fury, on the other hand, has a 80.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.

Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
M1 8-Core GPU
AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8 Core GPU
vs
RX Vega M GL / 870 Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
R9 Fury Radeon R9 Fury
vs
RX 6500 XT Radeon RX 6500 XT
Apple M1 8-Core GPU M1 8 Core GPU
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
RTX 3070 Ti Mobile GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile
vs
Radeon 660M Radeon 660M
RTX A4500 RTX A4500
vs
Arc A580 Arc A580
A40 PCIe A40 PCIe
vs
H100 PCIe 96 GB PCIe 96 GB
RX 6750 XT Radeon RX 6750 XT
vs
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB
vs
GeForce MX570 GeForce MX570
Iris Xe Graphics MAX Iris Xe Graphics MAX
vs
Apple M1 7-Core GPU 7 Core GPU
Iris Xe Max (DG1 LP / iDG1LP) Mobile Iris Xe Max (DG1 LP / iDG1LP) Mobile
vs
RTX 4080 Ti Max-Q RTX 4080 Ti Max-Q
Millennium G550
vs
Vega 7 Vega 7
RX 6800 Radeon RX 6800
vs
T400 4 GB 4 GB
Xbox GPU Xbox GPU
vs
RTX 4090 RTX 4090

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4 928 votes

Rate M1 8-Core GPU on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 178 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about M1 8-Core GPU or Radeon R9 Fury, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.