GeForce GTX 480M SLI vs Radeon R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 265 with GeForce GTX 480M SLI, including specs and performance data.
R7 265 outperforms GTX 480M SLI by an impressive 61% 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 | 475 | 618 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.42 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.87 | 4.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | N11E-GTX-A3 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 25 May 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1024 | 704 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 425 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 6000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 59.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.894 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
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 | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
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 | 95−100
+55.7%
| 61
−55.7%
|
| Full HD | 110−120
+59.4%
| 69
−59.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.35 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how R7 265 and GTX 480M SLI compete in popular games:
- R7 265 is 56% faster in 900p
- R7 265 is 59% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.34 | 5.79 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 25 May 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
R7 265 has a 61.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 480M SLI, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480M SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 480M SLI is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
