Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.00
+104%

R7 265 outperforms Iris Xe MAX Graphics by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking451640
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.59no data
Power efficiency4.7614.00
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code namePitcairnDG1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 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.

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 cores1024768
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2079.20
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs3224
TMUs6448

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 x4
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s68.26 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.2

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.

R7 265 9.00
+104%
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 4.41

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
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 6333
+21.3%

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 HD55−60
+104%
27
−104%
1440p40−45
+100%
20
−100%
4K30−35
+87.5%
16
−87.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.71no data
1440p3.73no data
4K4.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R7 265 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 104% faster in 1080p
  • R7 265 is 100% faster in 1440p
  • R7 265 is 88% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.00 4.41
Recency 13 February 2014 31 October 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 25 Watt

R7 265 has a 104.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 500% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

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.


3.1 373 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 274 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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 Iris Xe MAX Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.