Quadro P3000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 FURY X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
255 OEM 260 OEM 270 270 1024SP 270X 280 280X 280X2 285 290 290X 290X2 295X2 360 OEM 370 370 1024SP 370X 380 380 OEM 380X 390 390 X2 390X 390X2 A375 Fury FURY X FURY X2 Nano
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
P3000 Mobile P3200 P3200 Max-Q P4000 Mobile P4000 Max-Q P4200 P4200 Max-Q P5000 Mobile P5000 X2 Mobile P5200 P5200 Max-Q Tesla P6 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X with Quadro P3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 FURY X
2015, $649
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
22.42
+47.5%

R9 FURY X outperforms P3000 Mobile by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
P3000 Mobile P3000 Mobile

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking285385
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.81no data
Power efficiency6.2815.61
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameFijiGP104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 June 2015 (10 years ago)11 January 2017 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores40961280
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1088 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1215 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate268.897.20
Floating-point processing power8.602 TFLOPS3.11 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs25680
L1 Cache1 MB480 KB
L2 Cache2 MB1536 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length195 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno data
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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s168 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-
Display Portno data1.4

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
Optimus-+
3D Stereono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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.

R9 FURY X 22.42
+47.5%
P3000 Mobile 15.20

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.

R9 FURY X 9394
+48.5%
Samples: 201
P3000 Mobile 6325
Samples: 332

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.

R9 FURY X 16710
+80.5%
P3000 Mobile 9256

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 HD90−95
+40.6%
64
−40.6%
4K40−45
+42.9%
28
−42.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.21no data
4K16.23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+0%
63
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R9 FURY X and P3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • R9 FURY X is 41% faster in 1080p
  • R9 FURY X is 43% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 22.42 15.20
Recency 24 June 2015 11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 75 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 48% higher aggregate performance score.

P3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 267% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3000 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
RX 590 Radeon RX 590
P3000 Mobile Quadro P3000 Mobile
vs
T1000 Mobile Quadro T1000 Mobile
R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
GTX 780 Ti GeForce GTX 780 Ti
R9 370X AMD R9 370X
vs
RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation 5000 Embedded Ada Generation
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
HD 8730M 8730M
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
ATI Mobility HD 5730 5730
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
HD 6450 GDDR5 6450 GDDR5
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
HD 6490 6490
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
P4000 Max-Q P4000 Max-Q
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
Tegra X1
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
Radeon Next Next
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
R9 M390 Mac Edition M390 Mac Edition
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
9300M GS DDR2 9300M GS DDR2

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.2 91 votes

Rate Radeon R9 FURY X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 202 votes

Rate Quadro P3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 FURY X or Quadro P3000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.