Radeon R9 FURY X vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Radeon R9 FURY X, including specs and performance data.
R9 FURY X outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a whopping 451% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 667 | 226 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.67 |
| Power efficiency | 20.77 | 6.24 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Fiji |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 24 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 4096 |
| Compute units | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 256 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 191 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 type | System Shared | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| 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 | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | + |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 17
−429%
| 90−95
+429%
|
| 4K | 11
−445%
| 60−65
+445%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.21 |
| 4K | no data | 10.82 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 22
−445%
|
120−130
+445%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
−438%
|
70−75
+438%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| Valorant | 22
−445%
|
120−130
+445%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−438%
|
70−75
+438%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
−445%
|
120−130
+445%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−429%
|
90−95
+429%
|
| Fortnite | 18
−428%
|
95−100
+428%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−438%
|
70−75
+438%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 37
−441%
|
200−210
+441%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−436%
|
75−80
+436%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| World of Tanks | 42
−448%
|
230−240
+448%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−443%
|
190−200
+443%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−422%
|
120−130
+422%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−436%
|
75−80
+436%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Valorant | 15
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−433%
|
160−170
+433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−431%
|
170−180
+431%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−438%
|
70−75
+438%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−429%
|
90−95
+429%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−436%
|
75−80
+436%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and R9 FURY X compete in popular games:
- R9 FURY X is 429% faster in 1080p
- R9 FURY X is 445% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.34 | 23.92 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 24 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 275 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1733.3% lower power consumption.
R9 FURY X, on the other hand, has a 451.2% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
