G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Radeon R9 Fury

2015

Why buy it

✅3.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 17.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌189.5% higher power demand at 275W vs 95W.

RTX A2000 Mobile

2021

Why buy it

✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 95W instead of 275W, a 180W reduction.
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 Fury across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 17.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $549 MSRP).

Radeon R9 Fury

2015

RTX A2000 Mobile

2021

Why buy it

✅3.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 17.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Why buy it

✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 95W instead of 275W, a 180W reduction.
✅More future proof: Ampere (2020−2025) on 8nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌189.5% higher power demand at 275W vs 95W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 Fury across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 17.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $549 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 Fury better than RTX A2000 Mobile?

Yes. Radeon R9 Fury is clearly the better overall GPU here. Radeon R9 Fury averages 3.4% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 9,521 vs 9,506 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon R9 Fury is a 2015 card with FSR upscaling, while RTX A2000 Mobile is a 2021 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

RTX A2000 Mobile is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2021 generation instead of 2015, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 8nm process instead of 28nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon R9 Fury can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $549 MSRP. Radeon R9 Fury is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon R9 Fury is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $549 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 3.4% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 0.2% higher G3D Mark. RTX A2000 Mobile is the newer 2021 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (95W vs 275W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does RTX A2000 Mobile make more sense than Radeon R9 Fury?

Yes. RTX A2000 Mobile is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (95W vs 275W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 Fury. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 Fury currently gives you 0.2% higher G3D Mark and 3.4% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon R9 Fury Benchmark Check

RTX A2000 Mobile Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
1080p
low	92 FPS	87 FPS
medium	80 FPS	74 FPS
high	65 FPS	63 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	41 FPS
1440p
low	76 FPS	76 FPS
medium	66 FPS	65 FPS
high	49 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	33 FPS	32 FPS
4K
low	30 FPS	28 FPS
medium	27 FPS	26 FPS
high	20 FPS	18 FPS
ultra	17 FPS	16 FPS

Open Radeon R9 Fury Open RTX A2000 Mobile

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
1080p
low	243 FPS	227 FPS
medium	205 FPS	192 FPS
high	162 FPS	148 FPS
ultra	133 FPS	118 FPS
1440p
low	176 FPS	164 FPS
medium	145 FPS	138 FPS
high	121 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	94 FPS	90 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	97 FPS
medium	80 FPS	80 FPS
high	65 FPS	68 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	52 FPS

Open Radeon R9 Fury Open RTX A2000 Mobile

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
1080p
low	428 FPS	428 FPS
medium	343 FPS	342 FPS
high	286 FPS	285 FPS
ultra	214 FPS	214 FPS
1440p
low	321 FPS	321 FPS
medium	257 FPS	257 FPS
high	214 FPS	214 FPS
ultra	161 FPS	160 FPS
4K
low	214 FPS	214 FPS
medium	171 FPS	171 FPS
high	143 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	107 FPS	107 FPS

Open Radeon R9 Fury Open RTX A2000 Mobile

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
1080p
low	160 FPS	181 FPS
medium	133 FPS	148 FPS
high	115 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	116 FPS	128 FPS
medium	98 FPS	106 FPS
high	86 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	73 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	73 FPS
medium	58 FPS	61 FPS
high	46 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	37 FPS

Open Radeon R9 Fury Open RTX A2000 Mobile

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 Fury and RTX A2000 Mobile

Radeon R9 Fury

The Radeon R9 Fury is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 10 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,521 points. Launch price was $549.

RTX A2000 Mobile

The RTX A2000 Mobile is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 1215 MHz to 1687 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 20 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,506 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 Fury scores 9,521 and the RTX A2000 Mobile reaches 9,506 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 Fury is built on GCN 3.0 while the RTX A2000 Mobile uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 3,584 (Radeon R9 Fury) vs 2,560 (RTX A2000 Mobile). Raw compute: 7.168 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Fury) vs 8.637 TFLOPS (RTX A2000 Mobile). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1687 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
G3D Mark Score	9,521	9,506
Architecture	GCN 3.0	Ampere
Process Node	28 nm	8 nm
Shading Units	3584+40%	2560
Compute (TFLOPS)	7.168 TFLOPS	8.637 TFLOPS+20%
Boost Clock	1000 MHz	1687 MHz+69%
ROPs	64+33%	48
TMUs	224+180%	80
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	2.5 MB+184%
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The RTX A2000 Mobile gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon R9 Fury relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
Upscaling Tech	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 4096-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	HBM	GDDR6
Bus Width	4096-bit+3100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 Fury) vs 12.2 (RTX A2000 Mobile). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
DirectX	12.0	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.2	1.3+8%
OpenGL	4.4	4.6+5%
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Fury) vs 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A2000 Mobile). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon R9 Fury) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A2000 Mobile).

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
Encoder	VCE 3.0	7th Gen NVENC
Decoder	UVD 6.0	5th Gen NVDEC
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 Fury draws 275W versus the RTX A2000 Mobile's 95W — a 97.3% difference. The RTX A2000 Mobile is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 600W (Radeon R9 Fury) vs 500W (RTX A2000 Mobile). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 195mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 80°C.

Feature	Radeon R9 Fury	RTX A2000 Mobile
TDP	275W	95W-65%
Recommended PSU	600W	500W-17%
Power Connector	2x 8-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	195mm	0mm
Height	115mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	65°C-19%	80°C
Perf/Watt	34.6	100.1+189%