ATI Radeon HD 5850 vs R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 265 and Radeon HD 5850, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 265 outperforms ATI HD 5850 by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 446 | 634 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.59 | 0.56 |
| Power efficiency | 4.74 | 2.33 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Cypress |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 30 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R7 265 has 720% better value for money than ATI HD 5850.
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 | 1440 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 725 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 151 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 59.20 | 52.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.894 TFLOPS | 2.088 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 72 |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 2x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 128.0 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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:
| 900p | 110−120
+86.4%
| 59
−86.4%
|
| Full HD | 110−120
+93%
| 57
−93%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.35
+287%
| 5.25
−287%
|
- R7 265 has 287% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how R7 265 and ATI HD 5850 compete in popular games:
- R7 265 is 86% faster in 900p
- R7 265 is 93% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.00 | 4.45 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 30 September 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 151 Watt |
R7 265 has a 102.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 0.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5850 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
