GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Radeon R9 Fury

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.86
+42.2%

R9 Fury outperforms RTX 3050 4 GB by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking213308
Place by popularitynot in top-10027
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.0936.39
Power efficiency6.2613.45
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameFijiGA107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)27 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 4 GB has 350% better value for money than R9 Fury.

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 cores35842048
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data1545 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1740 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate224.0111.4
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS7.127 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22464
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin1x 6-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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR6
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-8.6

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 24.86
+42.2%
RTX 3050 4 GB 17.48

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 9593
+42.2%
RTX 3050 4 GB 6746

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 HD88
+46.7%
60−65
−46.7%
1440p89
+48.3%
60−65
−48.3%
4K49
+63.3%
30−35
−63.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.243.32
1440p6.173.32
4K11.206.63

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+47.3%
55−60
−47.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+45%
100−105
−45%
Hitman 3 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+54.5%
55−60
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+52.7%
55−60
−52.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+47.1%
70−75
−47.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%
Battlefield 5 51
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+45%
100−105
−45%
Hitman 3 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+54.5%
55−60
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+52.7%
55−60
−52.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+47.1%
70−75
−47.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+45%
100−105
−45%
Hitman 3 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+52.7%
55−60
−52.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+47.1%
70−75
−47.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+49.5%
95−100
−49.5%
Hitman 3 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+54.3%
35−40
−54.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+47.4%
95−100
−47.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+55.6%
27−30
−55.6%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Hitman 3 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+42.2%
90−95
−42.2%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+50%
24−27
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%

This is how R9 Fury and RTX 3050 4 GB compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 47% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 48% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 63% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.86 17.48
Recency 10 July 2015 27 January 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 90 Watt

R9 Fury has a 42.2% higher aggregate performance score.

RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 205.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB in performance tests.


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

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.


AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.8 168 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2488 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.