Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs R9 FURY X

Place in the ranking	218	481
Place by popularity	not in top-100	34
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.90	no data
Power efficiency	6.19	41.34
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Fiji	Vega
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	24 June 2015 (9 years ago)	7 January 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	4096	512
Compute units	64	no data
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	2100 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	268.8	no data
Floating-point processing power	8.602 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	256	no data

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 support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	191 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	no data
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 type	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	no data
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	no data	-

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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	no data
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
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 audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12_1
Shader Model	6.3	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	+	-
Mantle	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 FURY X 24.85
+175%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.05

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 FURY X 16710
+346%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743

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 HD	60−65 +173%	22 −173%
1440p	40−45 +150%	16 −150%
4K	24−27 +167%	9 −167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.82	no data
1440p	16.23	no data
4K	27.04	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20 +0%	20 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Hitman 3	15 +0%	15 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	35 +0%	35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +0%	36 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16 +0%	16 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Hitman 3	15 +0%	15 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	25 +0%	25 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14 +0%	14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +0%	9 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Hitman 3	14 +0%	14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24 +0%	24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +0%	23 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 +0%	12 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	11 +0%	11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +0%	5 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	10 +0%	10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +0%	20 +0%
Metro Exodus	17 +0%	17 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	59 +0%	59 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 +0%	9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

This is how R9 FURY X and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:

R9 FURY X is 173% faster in 1080p
R9 FURY X is 150% faster in 1440p
R9 FURY X is 167% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.85	9.05
Recency	24 June 2015	7 January 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	15 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 174.6% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 1733.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.