Radeon R9 Fury vs Vega Frontier Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with Radeon R9 Fury, including specs and performance data.
Frontier Edition outperforms R9 Fury by a substantial 33% 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 | 212 | 280 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.95 | 7.14 |
| Power efficiency | 7.85 | 6.44 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 10 July 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 Fury has 3% better value for money than Vega Frontier Edition.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 3584 |
| Compute units | no data | 56 |
| Core clock speed | 1382 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1600 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 409.6 | 224.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.11 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | HBM2 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 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 support
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 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 110−120 | 90
−18.2%
|
| 1440p | 140−150
+32.1%
| 106 |
| 4K | 60−65
+25%
| 48 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.08 | 6.10
+32.8%
|
| 1440p | 7.14 | 5.18
+27.4%
|
| 4K | 16.65 | 11.44
+31.3%
|
- R9 Fury has 33% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 27% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 31% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268 | 268 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Far Cry 6 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Fortnite | 95 | 95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91 | 91 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 130 | 130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50 | 50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46 | 46 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 72 | 72 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158 | 158 |
| Far Cry 6 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 180−190 | 180−190 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109 | 109 |
| Far Cry 6 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47 | 47 |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36 | 36 |
| Valorant | 120−130 | 120−130 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 102 | 102 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20 | 20 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25 | 25 |
This is how Vega Frontier Edition and R9 Fury compete in popular games:
- Vega Frontier Edition is 22% faster in 1080p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 32% faster in 1440p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 25% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.25 | 22.74 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 10 July 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 275 Watt |
Vega Frontier Edition has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.
R9 Fury, on the other hand, has 8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Fury in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 Fury 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.
