FirePro 2270 vs Radeon R9 Fury

Place in the ranking	220	1275
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.16	no data
Power efficiency	6.21	1.69
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Fiji	Cedar
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	10 July 2015 (9 years ago)	31 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	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	3584	80
Compute units	56	no data
Core clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	8,900 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	224.0	4.800
Floating-point processing power	7.168 TFLOPS	0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	4
TMUs	224	8

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	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	170 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	None
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)	GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	9.6 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DMS-59
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	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.3	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	N/A
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 24.85
+6616%

FirePro 2270 0.37

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R9 Fury 9570
+6639%

FirePro 2270 142

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	88 +8700%	1−2 −8700%
1440p	103 +10200%	1−2 −10200%
4K	47	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.24	no data
1440p	5.33	no data
4K	11.68	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Battlefield 5	80−85 +8000%	1−2 −8000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Metro Exodus	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +8300%	1−2 −8300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Battlefield 5	51	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Metro Exodus	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +8300%	1−2 −8300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	29	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +8300%	1−2 −8300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18	0−1
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +7000%	2−3 −7000%
Hitman 3	30−33	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55	0−1
Metro Exodus	45−50	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +6900%	2−3 −6900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	38	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20	0−1
Hitman 3	20−22	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +12700%	1−2 −12700%
Metro Exodus	27−30	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	11	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

0−1

This is how R9 Fury and FirePro 2270 compete in popular games:

R9 Fury is 8700% faster in 1080p
R9 Fury is 10200% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.85	0.37
Recency	10 July 2015	31 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	15 Watt

R9 Fury has a 6616.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

FirePro 2270, on the other hand, has 1733.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro 2270 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while FirePro 2270 is a workstation one.

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