GeForce GTX 780 vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GTX 780, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Fury outperforms GTX 780 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 222 | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.16 | 4.85 |
| Power efficiency | 6.23 | 5.75 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 Fury has 68% better value for money than GTX 780.
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 | 3584 | 2304 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 192 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Minimum recommended system power | no data | 600 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 |
| Blu Ray 3D | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
| 3D Vision Live | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
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 | 89
+64.8%
| 54
−64.8%
|
| 1440p | 97
+21.3%
| 80−85
−21.3%
|
| 4K | 49
+22.5%
| 40−45
−22.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.17
+94.8%
| 12.02
−94.8%
|
| 1440p | 5.66
+43.3%
| 8.11
−43.3%
|
| 4K | 11.20
+44.8%
| 16.23
−44.8%
|
- R9 Fury has 95% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 43% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 45% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Elden Ring | 80−85
+24.6%
|
65−70
−24.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+30%
|
50−55
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+25%
|
80−85
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 80−85
+24.6%
|
65−70
−24.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+25%
|
100−105
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+30%
|
50−55
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+20%
|
130−140
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+25%
|
80−85
−25%
|
| World of Tanks | 268
+21.8%
|
220−230
−21.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40
−31.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+30%
|
100−105
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+26.3%
|
80−85
−26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+20%
|
130−140
−20%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+25%
|
80−85
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+25.7%
|
35−40
−25.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+25%
|
140−150
−25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 158
+21.5%
|
130−140
−21.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+20%
|
60−65
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+20%
|
55−60
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33
−20%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+21.8%
|
55−60
−21.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 109
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+20%
|
85−90
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 35
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
This is how R9 Fury and GTX 780 compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 65% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 21% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 23% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.85 | 20.84 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 23 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 250 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 19.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 780, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
