Radeon R9 Fury X vs Radeon R9 Fury

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R9 Fury is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 Fury X.

Insight	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 Fury offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 Fury holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $80), it costs 38% less, resulting in a 62.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+62.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80)	✅More affordable ($50)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon R9 Fury X Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 Fury Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 Fury X and Radeon R9 Fury

Radeon R9 Fury X

The Radeon R9 Fury X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 24 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,382 points. Launch price was $649.

Radeon R9 Fury

The Radeon R9 Fury is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 10 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,521 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 Fury X scores 9,382 and the Radeon R9 Fury reaches 9,521 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Fury X is built on GCN 3.0 while the Radeon R9 Fury uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs 3,584 (Radeon R9 Fury). Raw compute: 8.602 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs 7.168 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Fury). Boost clocks: 1050 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
G3D Mark Score	9,382	9,521+1%
Architecture	GCN 3.0	GCN 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	4096+14%	3584
Compute (TFLOPS)	8.602 TFLOPS+20%	7.168 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1050 MHz+5%	1000 MHz
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	256+14%	224
L1 Cache	1 MB+14%	0.88 MB
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of HBM. Bus width: 4096-bit vs 4096-bit.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	HBM	HBM
Memory Bandwidth	512 GB/s	512 GB/s
Bus Width	4096-bit	4096-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 Fury). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
DirectX	12.0	12.0
Vulkan	1.2	1.2
OpenGL	4.6+5%	4.4
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Fury). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon R9 Fury).

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
Encoder	VCE 3.0	VCE 3.0
Decoder	UVD 6.0	UVD 6.0
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 Fury X draws 275W versus the Radeon R9 Fury's 275W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 Fury is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 600W (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs 600W (Radeon R9 Fury). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 195mm vs 195mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 65°C.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury X	Radeon R9 Fury
TDP	275W	275W
Recommended PSU	600W	600W
Power Connector	2x 8-pin	2x 8-pin
Length	195mm	195mm
Height	115mm	115mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	60°C-8%	65°C
Perf/Watt	34.1	34.6+1%

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R9 Fury X launched at $649 MSRP and currently averages $80, while the Radeon R9 Fury launched at $549 and now averages $50. The Radeon R9 Fury costs 37.5% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 117.3 (Radeon R9 Fury X) vs 190.4 (Radeon R9 Fury) — the Radeon R9 Fury offers 62.3% better value.