Radeon R9 Fury vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregated performance score
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 36% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 147 | 201 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 15.07 | 8.62 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.2 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 July 2016 (7 years ago) | 16 June 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $549 |
| Current price | $312 (0.3x MSRP) | $44 (0.1x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Titan X Pascal has 75% better value for money than R9 Fury.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3584 | 3584 |
| Compute units | no data | 56 |
| Core clock speed | 1418 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 224.0 |
| Floating-point performance | 10,974 gflops | 7,168 gflops |
Size and 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | no data | 1 |
Memory
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 | GDDR5X | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | + |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| Mantle | no data | + |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 36% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 36% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 140% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 105% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 87% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 68% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
Titan X Pascal outperforms Radeon R9 Fury by 156% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.
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 | 126
+38.5%
| 91
−38.5%
|
| 1440p | 76
−3.9%
| 79
+3.9%
|
| 4K | 59
+25.5%
| 47
−25.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+97.5%
|
40−45
−97.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 104
+112%
|
45−50
−112%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 95
+116%
|
40−45
−116%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+91.3%
|
80−85
−91.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 155
+138%
|
65−70
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+95%
|
40−45
−95%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+149%
|
65−70
−149%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 150
+131%
|
65−70
−131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+53%
|
80−85
−53%
|
| Hitman 3 | 163
+120%
|
70−75
−120%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 107
+102%
|
50−55
−102%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 104
+160%
|
40−45
−160%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 136
+147%
|
55−60
−147%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 104
+117%
|
45−50
−117%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 87
+77.6%
|
45−50
−77.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 85
+93.2%
|
40−45
−93.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+83.8%
|
80−85
−83.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 123
+89.2%
|
65−70
−89.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+129%
|
65−70
−129%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 140
+115%
|
65−70
−115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+45.8%
|
80−85
−45.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 143
+93.2%
|
70−75
−93.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 84
+58.5%
|
50−55
−58.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+134%
|
40−45
−134%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 58
+45%
|
40−45
−45%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 114
+107%
|
55−60
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+102%
|
91
−102%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 91
+89.6%
|
45−50
−89.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 67
+131%
|
29
−131%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 63
+43.2%
|
40−45
−43.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+115%
|
65−70
−115%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 127
+95.4%
|
65−70
−95.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+34.9%
|
80−85
−34.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+107%
|
46
−107%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 64
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 84
+121%
|
35−40
−121%
|
| Hitman 3 | 87
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60
+81.8%
|
30−35
−81.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+132%
|
24−27
−132%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 37
+94.7%
|
18−20
−94.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 78
+136%
|
30−35
−136%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 51
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+32.7%
|
55−60
−32.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 38
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+135%
|
40−45
−135%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 101
+110%
|
45−50
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+37.3%
|
50−55
−37.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 46
+142%
|
18−20
−142%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 49
+158%
|
18−20
−158%
|
| Hitman 3 | 47
+104%
|
21−24
−104%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 17
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 42
+147%
|
16−18
−147%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+88.9%
|
36
−88.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 38
+245%
|
11
−245%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 32
+146%
|
12−14
−146%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+145%
|
27−30
−145%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 56
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 26
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and R9 Fury compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 38.5% faster than R9 Fury in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 3.9% faster than Titan X Pascal in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 25.5% faster than R9 Fury in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Titan X Pascal is 245% faster than the R9 Fury.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Titan X Pascal surpassed R9 Fury in all 68 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 33.64 | 24.77 |
| Recency | 25 July 2016 | 16 June 2015 |
| Cost | $1199 | $549 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 275 Watt |
The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Fury in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
