Can a AMD Radeon R9 Fury run No Man's Sky?
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury handles No Man's Sky comfortably — roughly 638 FPS at 1080p and 396 FPS at 1440p on high settings.
High preset, upscaling off, paired with a AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D-class processor.
How the AMD Radeon R9 Fury measures up
| Requirement | AMD Radeon R9 Fury | Minimum | Recommended | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPU performance score | 19 | 2 | 2 | Recommended |
| Video memory | 4 GB | 3 GB | GB | Recommended |
| Ray tracing | — Not supported | Game has no RT | N/A | |
| Upscaling | FSR | DLSS, FSR | Available | |
Recommended settings
For 60 FPS at 1080p
Use the ultra preset. You already clear 60 FPS on high, so this leaves headroom for dips in busy scenes.
At 1440p
Comfortable — around 396 FPS on high.
At 4K
Around 230 FPS on high — genuinely viable.
Upscaling
No Man's Sky supports DLSS and FSR. Your card supports FSR — Quality mode is worth 25–40% more frames. Compare upscalers.
How other cards handle No Man's Sky
| Graphics card | Tier | 1080p FPS | vs AMD Radeon R9 Fury | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | C | 673 | ▲ 35 FPS | Compare |
| Intel Arc A580 | C | 673 | ▲ 35 FPS | Compare |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | C | 638 | ▼ 0 FPS | Compare |
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop | C | 638 | ▼ 0 FPS | Compare |
| AMD Radeon RX 590 | C | 603 | ▼ 35 FPS | Compare |
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8GB | D | 568 | ▼ 70 FPS | Compare |
Frequently asked questions
Can the AMD Radeon R9 Fury run No Man's Sky?
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury handles No Man's Sky comfortably — roughly 638 FPS at 1080p and 396 FPS at 1440p on high settings.
What FPS will I get?
On high settings with upscaling off: roughly 638 FPS at 1080p, 396 FPS at 1440p and 230 FPS at 4K. These are modelled estimates — see our methodology.
What settings should I use?
Start at the ultra preset at 1080p. Then enable upscaling on Quality mode before lowering anything further.
Will my processor hold this back?
These figures assume a processor fast enough not to limit the card. If yours is older, run the bottleneck calculator — this title is unusually CPU-heavy, so it matters more than usual here.