Radeon 660M vs R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Radeon 660M, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.37
+6%

R7 265 outperforms Radeon 660M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking404424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.72no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)RDNA 2 (2020−2022)
GPU code namePitcairnRDNA 2 Rembrandt
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data
Current price$242 (1.6x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1024384
Boost clock speed925 MHz1900 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2045.60
Floating-point performance1,894 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 265 and Radeon 660M 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.

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1400 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity1no data
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
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkanno data1.2
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 10.37
+6%
Radeon 660M 9.78

R7 265 outperforms 660M by 6% based on our aggregate 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%

R7 265 5220
+10.3%
Radeon 660M 4735

R7 265 outperforms 660M by 10% 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 HD24−27
−4.2%
25
+4.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+6.7%
45−50
−6.7%
Hitman 3 21
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 39
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+6.7%
45−50
−6.7%
Hitman 3 11
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+17.1%
35−40
−17.1%
Metro Exodus 15
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 32
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+19%
21−24
−19%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+6.7%
45−50
−6.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 22
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Hitman 3 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

This is how R7 265 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 660M is 4% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.37 9.78
Recency 13 February 2014 4 January 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 45 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 265 and Radeon 660M.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Radeon 660M is a notebook one.


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

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
AMD Radeon 660M
Radeon 660M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 368 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 234 votes

Rate Radeon 660M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.