Radeon R7 M370 vs R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Radeon R7 M370, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.65
+185%

R7 265 outperforms R7 M370 by a whopping 185% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking475756
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.66no data
Power efficiency4.88no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code namePitcairnLitho
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)5 May 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores1024384
Core clock speedno data900 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz960 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million690 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate59.2023.04
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.7373 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6424

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s73.6 GB/s
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity++
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync++
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Mantle-+

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.

R7 265 9.65
+185%
R7 M370 3.39

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
+197%
R7 M370 1760

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 HD35−40
+150%
14
−150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Sons of the Forest 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Sons of the Forest 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Sons of the Forest 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Sons of the Forest 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Sons of the Forest 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Sons of the Forest 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R7 265 and R7 M370 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 150% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.65 3.39
Recency 13 February 2014 5 May 2015

R7 265 has a 184.7% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 M370, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R7 M370 is a notebook one.

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 R7 M370
Radeon R7 M370

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.


3.2 382 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 86 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or Radeon R7 M370, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.