Radeon 8040S vs R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Radeon 8040S, including specs and performance data.
8040S outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 141% 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 | 488 | 264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.69 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.94 | 32.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 59.20 | 179.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.894 TFLOPS | 5.734 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 5.0 x16 |
| 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
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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 and SDK support
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 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.66 | 23.31 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 55 Watt |
Radeon 8040S has a 141.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 172.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8040S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 8040S 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.
