Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce GTX 480

Place in the ranking	431	436
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.65	5.25
Power efficiency	2.97	4.83
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GF100	Pitcairn
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	26 March 2010 (14 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 218% better value for money than GTX 480.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	480	1024
Core clock speed	700 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	925 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	42.06	59.20
Floating-point processing power	1.345 TFLOPS	1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	32
TMUs	60	64

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	267 mm	210 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 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	1536 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1848 MHz (3696 data rate)	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	177.4 GB/s	179.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

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	Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
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 compatibility

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 benchmark performance

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. 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.

GTX 480 10.65
+2.5%

R7 265 10.39

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.

GTX 480 3650

R7 265 5220
+43%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18
+14.3%

14−16

−14.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +9.2%	65−70 −9.2%
Hitman 3	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +5.5%	55−60 −5.5%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +13.3%	30−33 −13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +8.3%	60−65 −8.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +9.2%	65−70 −9.2%
Hitman 3	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +5.5%	55−60 −5.5%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +13.3%	30−33 −13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +8.3%	60−65 −8.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +9.2%	65−70 −9.2%
Hitman 3	20−22 +11.1%	18−20 −11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +5.5%	55−60 −5.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +8.3%	60−65 −8.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+11.1%

27−30

−11.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +8.9%	45−50 −8.9%
Hitman 3	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +3.1%	65−70 −3.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+12.5%

16−18

−12.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+11.1%

9−10
−11.1%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.65	10.39
Recency	26 March 2010	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	150 Watt

GTX 480 has a 2.5% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 265, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 480 and Radeon R7 265.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.