ATI Radeon HD 4850 vs R7 265

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 and Radeon HD 4850, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.05
+291%

R7 265 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking439816
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.110.25
Power efficiency4.791.67
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code namePitcairnRV770
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)25 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 1944% better value for money than ATI HD 4850.

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 cores1024800
Core clock speedno data625 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million956 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt110 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2025.00
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS1 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6440

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 2.0 x16
Length210 mm246 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin1x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz993 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s63.55 GB/s

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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
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® 1210.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/A

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:

900p110−120
+279%
29
−279%
Full HD150−160
+285%
39
−285%
1200p70−75
+268%
19
−268%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.99
+414%
5.10
−414%
  • R7 265 has 414% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R7 265 and ATI HD 4850 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 279% faster in 900p
  • R7 265 is 285% faster in 1080p
  • R7 265 is 268% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.05 2.57
Recency 13 February 2014 25 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 110 Watt

R7 265 has a 291.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4850, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.


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
ATI Radeon HD 4850
Radeon HD 4850

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
3.9 267 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4850 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.