Radeon R9 FURY X vs Pro W5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5500 with Radeon R9 FURY X, including specs and performance data.
R9 FURY X outperforms Pro W5500 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 235 | 217 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 42.88 | 6.83 |
| Power efficiency | 13.15 | 6.28 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (4 years ago) | 24 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro W5500 has 528% better value for money than R9 FURY X.
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 | 1408 | 4096 |
| Compute units | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 1187 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.2 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.942 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 88 | 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 | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 191 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
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 | 4x 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| 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. 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.64 | 24.83 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 24 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 275 Watt |
Pro W5500 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.
R9 FURY X, on the other hand, has a 5% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro W5500 and Radeon R9 FURY X.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5500 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
