Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 and Radeon R7 265, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 265 outperforms GTX 590 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 576 | 507 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | 4.76 |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 5.03 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (15 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 265 has 590% better value for money than GTX 590.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 ×2 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.894 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 KB |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 210 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 179.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 47 | 55−60
+17%
|
| Full HD | 111 | 130−140
+17.1%
|
| 1200p | 112 | 130−140
+16.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30 | 1.15
+81.8%
|
- R7 265 has 82% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 24−27
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 50−55
+19%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16 | 18−20
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 24−27
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 50−55
+19%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 55−60
+12.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
| Valorant | 80−85 | 95−100
+17.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 20−22 | 24−27
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45 | 50−55
+19%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130 | 150−160
+18.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 70−75
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 55−60
+12.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85 | 95−100
+17.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 70−75
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 40−45
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85 | 95−100
+17.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 55−60
+12.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 18−20
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65 | 75−80
+21%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 12−14
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 50−55
+16.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85 | 95−100
+17.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33 | 35−40
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
This is how GTX 590 and R7 265 compete in popular games:
- R7 265 is 17% faster in 900p
- R7 265 is 17% faster in 1080p
- R7 265 is 16% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.99 | 9.68 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 13 February 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 150 Watt |
R7 265 has a 21% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 30% more advanced lithography process, and 59% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
