Radeon 780M vs R7 265

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.45

780M outperforms R7 265 by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking437305
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.24no data
Power efficiency4.8083.89
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code namePitcairnHawx Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 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 cores1024768
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz2700 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate59.20129.6
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 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 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 DisplayPortPortable 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
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 10.45
Radeon 780M 18.28
+74.9%

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 780M 7987
+53%

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 HD18−21
−94.4%
35
+94.4%
1440p9−10
−88.9%
17
+88.9%
4K8−9
−75%
14
+75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.28no data
1440p16.56no data
4K18.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Elden Ring 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Elden Ring 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+0%
54
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
World of Tanks 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Elden Ring 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+0%
19
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21
+0%
21
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R7 265 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 94% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 89% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 780M is 75% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.45 18.28
Recency 13 February 2014 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 74.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M 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 780M 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 780M
Radeon 780M

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
4.2 1629 votes

Rate Radeon 780M 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.