Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce MX350

Place in the ranking	541	438
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	5.32
Power efficiency	25.24	4.80
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP107	Pitcairn
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	1024
Core clock speed	747 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	937 MHz	925 MHz
Number of transistors	3,300 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.98	59.20
Floating-point processing power	1.199 TFLOPS	1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	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	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	210 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1 x 6-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 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	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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	+
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	6.1	-

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.

GeForce MX350 7.32

R7 265 10.45
+42.8%

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.

GeForce MX350 4371

R7 265 5220
+19.4%

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 HD	27 −29.6%	35−40 +29.6%
1440p	31 −29%	40−45 +29%
4K	26 −34.6%	35−40 +34.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.26
1440p	no data	3.73
4K	no data	4.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27 −29.6%	35−40 +29.6%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 −40%	7−8 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	32 −40.6%	45−50 +40.6%
Forza Horizon 5	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Metro Exodus	28 −25%	35−40 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 −40.6%	45−50 +40.6%
Valorant	24−27 −34.6%	35−40 +34.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	51 −37.3%	70−75 +37.3%
Far Cry 5	50 −40%	70−75 +40%
Fortnite	40−45 −39.5%	60−65 +39.5%
Forza Horizon 4	25 −40%	35−40 +40%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%
Metro Exodus	17 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	85 −41.2%	120−130 +41.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Valorant	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
World of Tanks	120 −41.7%	170−180 +41.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Dota 2	76 −31.6%	100−105 +31.6%
Far Cry 5	40 −37.5%	55−60 +37.5%
Forza Horizon 4	19 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −35.6%	80−85 +35.6%
Valorant	24−27 −34.6%	35−40 +34.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Grand Theft Auto V	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
World of Tanks	50−55 −41.5%	75−80 +41.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −38.5%	18−20 +38.5%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −40.6%	45−50 +40.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%
Valorant	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 −33.3%	24−27 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −33.3%	24−27 +33.3%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −33.3%	24−27 +33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	30 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Fortnite	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Valorant	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

This is how GeForce MX350 and R7 265 compete in popular games:

R7 265 is 30% faster in 1080p
R7 265 is 29% faster in 1440p
R7 265 is 35% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.32	10.45
Recency	10 February 2020	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	150 Watt