Radeon R7 265 vs Pro 560X
Aggregated performance score
R7 265 outperforms Pro 560X by a small 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 431 | 403 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.15 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (6 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $133 | $242 (1.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro 560X has 737% better value for money than R7 265.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 1,894 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro 560X and Radeon R7 265 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | + | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
R7 265 outperforms Pro 560X by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Pro 560X outperforms R7 265 by 9% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 41
+2.5%
| 40−45
−2.5%
|
| 1440p | 40
+0%
| 40−45
+0%
|
| 4K | 17
−5.9%
| 18−20
+5.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 26
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 25
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Pro 560X and R7 265 compete in popular games:
- Pro 560X is 3% faster in 1080p
- R7 265 is 0% faster in 1440p
- R7 265 is 6% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.50 | 10.34 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 13 February 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 150 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560X and Radeon R7 265.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
