Radeon R7 260 vs R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 265 and Radeon R7 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 265 outperforms R7 260 by a considerable 40% 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 | 501 | 605 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.79 | 3.33 |
| Power efficiency | 5.02 | 5.65 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Bonaire |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | reference |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (12 years ago) | 17 December 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 265 has 44% better value for money than R7 260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 768 |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 59.20 | 48.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.894 TFLOPS | 1.536 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
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 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1 x 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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 104 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| DDMA audio | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.75 | 6.95 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 17 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 115 Watt |
R7 265 has a 40% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 260, on the other hand, has 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260 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.
