GRID K2 vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with GRID K2, including specs and performance data.
R9 Fury outperforms GRID K2 by a whopping 249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 238 | 566 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.04 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 6.16 | 2.15 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) | 11 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $5,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 Fury has 4593% better value for money than GRID K2.
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 | 1536 ×2 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 224 | 128 ×2 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 type | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | No outputs |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.175 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 90
+275%
| 24−27
−275%
|
| 1440p | 106
+253%
| 30−35
−253%
|
| 4K | 48
+300%
| 12−14
−300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.10
+3451%
| 216.63
−3451%
|
| 1440p | 5.18
+3246%
| 173.30
−3246%
|
| 4K | 11.44
+3688%
| 433.25
−3688%
|
- R9 Fury has 3451% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 3246% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 3688% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+283%
|
35−40
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+283%
|
35−40
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+267%
|
21−24
−267%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+287%
|
30−33
−287%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+252%
|
21−24
−252%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+260%
|
45−50
−260%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+283%
|
35−40
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268
+257%
|
75−80
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+300%
|
30−33
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+267%
|
21−24
−267%
|
| Fortnite | 95
+252%
|
27−30
−252%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+252%
|
21−24
−252%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+254%
|
24−27
−254%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+264%
|
14−16
−264%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+279%
|
24−27
−279%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+260%
|
45−50
−260%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+271%
|
35−40
−271%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+267%
|
21−24
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+283%
|
12−14
−283%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+260%
|
45−50
−260%
|
| Fortnite | 72
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+264%
|
14−16
−264%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158
+251%
|
45−50
−251%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+287%
|
45−50
−287%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+265%
|
55−60
−265%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+271%
|
14−16
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+275%
|
16−18
−275%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109
+263%
|
30−33
−263%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+292%
|
12−14
−292%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+278%
|
27−30
−278%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 25
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
This is how R9 Fury and GRID K2 compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 275% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 253% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 300% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.38 | 6.12 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 11 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 225 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 249.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
GRID K2, on the other hand, has 22.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while GRID K2 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
