Radeon R9 FURY X vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with Radeon R9 FURY X, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms R9 FURY X by a considerable 46% 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 | 180 | 282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.81 |
| Power efficiency | 22.80 | 6.26 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 24 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3072 | 4096 |
| Compute units | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | 1 MB |
| 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 195 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
| G-SYNC 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 | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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 | 132
+46.7%
| 90−95
−46.7%
|
| 1440p | 84
+52.7%
| 55−60
−52.7%
|
| 4K | 54
+54.3%
| 35−40
−54.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.21 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.80 |
| 4K | no data | 18.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+55%
|
120−130
−55%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 165
+50%
|
110−120
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+55%
|
120−130
−55%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+51.3%
|
80−85
−51.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+50.6%
|
85−90
−50.6%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+48%
|
100−105
−48%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+50.6%
|
85−90
−50.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+50%
|
70−75
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+47.8%
|
90−95
−47.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+56.2%
|
130−140
−56.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 162
+47.3%
|
110−120
−47.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+55%
|
120−130
−55%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+45.8%
|
190−200
−45.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120
+50%
|
80−85
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+53.8%
|
80−85
−53.8%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+48%
|
100−105
−48%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+50.6%
|
85−90
−50.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+50%
|
70−75
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+52%
|
75−80
−52%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+52.3%
|
65−70
−52.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+47.8%
|
90−95
−47.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+56.2%
|
130−140
−56.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+52%
|
100−105
−52%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+53.3%
|
60−65
−53.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 111
+48%
|
75−80
−48%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+50.6%
|
85−90
−50.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+47.8%
|
90−95
−47.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Valorant | 181
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+48%
|
100−105
−48%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+58%
|
50−55
−58%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+54%
|
150−160
−54%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+46.7%
|
45−50
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+45.8%
|
120−130
−45.8%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+48.8%
|
160−170
−48.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+45.9%
|
85−90
−45.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 107
+52.9%
|
70−75
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+45.7%
|
70−75
−45.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+50%
|
60−65
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+54.5%
|
55−60
−54.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+51.1%
|
45−50
−51.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+54.6%
|
130−140
−54.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+46%
|
50−55
−46%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 54
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and R9 FURY X compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 47% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 53% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 54% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.67 | 22.43 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 24 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 275 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 45.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 FURY X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics 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.
