Arc A580 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 and Arc A580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.68

A580 outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 198% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking508226
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.76no data
Power efficiency5.0312.85
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code namePitcairnDG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (12 years ago)10 October 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores10243072
Core clock speedno data1700 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate59.20384.0
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs3296
TMUs64192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24
L1 Cache256 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB8 MB

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 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin2x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++

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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.3
DLSS-+

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.

R7 265 9.68
Arc A580 28.87
+198%

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.

R7 265 5220
Arc A580 27574
+428%

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 HD30−35
−70.9%
103
1440p18−2056
+211%
4K10−1233
+230%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.97no data
1440p8.28no data
4K14.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 149 149
Counter-Strike 2 331 331
Cyberpunk 2077 73 73
Resident Evil 4 Remake 131 131

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 110 110
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 263 263
Cyberpunk 2077 65 65
Far Cry 5 134 134
Fortnite 130−140 130−140
Forza Horizon 4 107 107
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
Valorant 190−200 190−200

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 79 79
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 129 129
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 57 57
Far Cry 5 122 122
Fortnite 130−140 130−140
Forza Horizon 4 102 102
Grand Theft Auto V 86 86
Metro Exodus 97 97
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 174 174
Valorant 190−200 190−200

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 53 53
Far Cry 5 114 114
Forza Horizon 4 87 87
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68 68
Valorant 190−200 190−200

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 130−140

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 80 80
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210 200−210
Grand Theft Auto V 37 37
Metro Exodus 57 57
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 220−230 220−230

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85 80−85
Cyberpunk 2077 39 39
Far Cry 5 87 87
Forza Horizon 4 75 75
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55 55

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 70−75 70−75

4K
High

Atomic Heart 21−24 21−24
Counter-Strike 2 19 19
Grand Theft Auto V 38 38
Metro Exodus 37 37
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61 61
Valorant 170−180 170−180

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50 45−50
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 30−35
Cyberpunk 2077 21 21
Far Cry 5 47 47
Forza Horizon 4 56 56
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 30−35

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40 35−40

This is how R7 265 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is 243% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A580 is 211% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A580 is 230% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.68 28.87
Recency 13 February 2014 10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 175 Watt

R7 265 has 14% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 198% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 79% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 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.

Community ratings

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


3.2 388 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 584 votes

Rate Arc A580 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or Arc A580, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.