Radeon 760M vs R7 265

Place in the ranking	437	353
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.25	no data
Power efficiency	4.82	69.14
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	Hawx Point
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

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	1024	512
Core clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	2599 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	83.17
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	32
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	System Shared
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	Portable Device Dependent
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.8
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3

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.

R7 265 10.39

Radeon 760M 14.90
+43.4%

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

Radeon 760M 6142
+17.7%

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	21−24 −52.4%	32 +52.4%
1440p	12−14 −58.3%	19 +58.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.10	no data
1440p	12.42	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +0%	24 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 +0%	18 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	44 +0%	44 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	37 +0%	37 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +0%	23 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how R7 265 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

Radeon 760M is 52% faster in 1080p
Radeon 760M is 58% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.39	14.90
Recency	13 February 2014	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 43.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.

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