Radeon RX 6500 XT vs R9 Fury

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and Radeon RX 6500 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.83

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking220219
Place by popularitynot in top-10082
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.2552.21
Power efficiency6.2215.98
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameFijiNavi 24
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6500 XT has 620% better value for money than R9 Fury.

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 cores35841024
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data2610 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz2815 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate224.0180.2
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22464
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pin1x 6-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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR6
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s143.9 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan+1.3
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.

R9 Fury 24.83
RX 6500 XT 24.83

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 9570
RX 6500 XT 9570

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 Fury 17543
RX 6500 XT 22954
+30.8%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Fury 42039
RX 6500 XT 76445
+81.8%

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 14580
RX 6500 XT 15712
+7.8%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Fury 80439
RX 6500 XT 91909
+14.3%

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 HD88
+41.9%
62
−41.9%
1440p103
+268%
28
−268%
4K47
+194%
16
−194%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.243.21
1440p5.337.11
4K11.6812.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
−80%
72
+80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
−21.4%
51
+21.4%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+2%
50−55
−2%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
−35%
54
+35%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0.9%
110−120
−0.9%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1.6%
60−65
−1.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
−2.4%
43
+2.4%
Battlefield 5 51
−58.8%
80−85
+58.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+2%
50−55
−2%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+17.6%
34
−17.6%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0.9%
110−120
−0.9%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1.6%
60−65
−1.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
−27.4%
107
+27.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1.9%
50−55
−1.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
−86.2%
50−55
+86.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+35.5%
31
−35.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+2%
50−55
−2%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+33.3%
30
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+25%
92
−25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1.2%
83
−1.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
−17.4%
54
+17.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+312%
25
−312%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1.6%
60−65
−1.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+4.3%
23
−4.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−6.3%
17
+6.3%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+3.6%
27−30
−3.6%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0.7%
140−150
−0.7%
Hitman 3 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−29.4%
66
+29.4%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−21.3%
57
+21.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−3.7%
56
+3.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+2.4%
40−45
−2.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+58.3%
24−27
−58.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+100%
10
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+28.6%
28
−28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6
−117%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4
−50%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+20%
25
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+10%
10
−10%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%

This is how R9 Fury and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 42% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 268% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 194% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Fury is 312% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 86% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is ahead in 30 tests (42%)
  • RX 6500 XT is ahead in 13 tests (18%)
  • there's a draw in 29 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 July 2015 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 107 Watt

RX 6500 XT has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 157% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 Fury and Radeon RX 6500 XT.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.7 174 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 3299 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.