Radeon RX 6750 XT vs R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
240 240 OEM 250 250 OEM 250E 250X 250XE 260 260X 265 265X OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
6700 6700 XT 6750 GRE 6750 GRE 10 GB 6750 GRE 12 GB 6750 XT

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 and Radeon RX 6750 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.66

6750 XT outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 411% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 265 R7 265
RX 6750 XT RX 6750 XT

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking48871
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.6950.07
Power efficiency4.9415.17
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code namePitcairnNavi 22
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)3 March 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6750 XT has 968% better value for money than R7 265.

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 cores10242560
Core clock speedno data2150 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate59.20416.0
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs64160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40
L0 Cacheno data640 KB
L1 Cache256 KB512 KB
L2 Cache512 KB3 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length210 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB12 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s432.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan-1.3

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.

R7 265 9.66
RX 6750 XT 49.41
+411%

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
RX 6750 XT 37609
+620%

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 HD30−35
−443%
163
+443%
1440p16−18
−450%
88
+450%
4K9−10
−456%
50
+456%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.97
−47.5%
3.37
+47.5%
1440p9.31
−49.3%
6.24
+49.3%
4K16.56
−50.8%
10.98
+50.8%
  • RX 6750 XT has 47% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT has 49% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT has 51% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 353
+0%
353
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 165
+0%
165
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 346
+0%
346
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 127
+0%
127
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 178
+0%
178
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 217
+0%
217
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 220
+0%
220
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 109
+0%
109
+0%
Dota 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 170
+0%
170
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 186
+0%
186
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 162
+0%
162
+0%
Metro Exodus 127
+0%
127
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 245
+0%
245
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 98
+0%
98
+0%
Dota 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 158
+0%
158
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 135
+0%
135
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 76
+0%
76
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60
+0%
60
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 104
+0%
104
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79
+0%
79
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Dota 2 101
+0%
101
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

This is how R7 265 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6750 XT is 443% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT is 450% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT is 456% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 9.66 49.41
Recency 13 February 2014 3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 250 Watt

R7 265 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 411.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

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 RX 6750 XT
Radeon RX 6750 XT
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
GTX 660 GeForce GTX 660
RX 6750 XT Radeon RX 6750 XT
vs
RTX 5060 GeForce RTX 5060
R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
GTX 480 GeForce GTX 480
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
RX 460 1024SP 460 1024SP
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
GTX 650 Ti 650 Ti
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
ATI HD 2600 XT 2600 XT
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
Pro W5700X W5700X
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
RTX 3070 Ti Mobile 3070 Ti Mobile
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
RTX A500 A500
R7 265 AMD R7 265
vs
Radeon 8040S 8040S
R5 220 OEM AMD R5 220 OEM
vs
GeForce MX570 MX570
R5 230 OEM AMD R5 230 OEM
vs
RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile 4000 Ada Generation Mobile
R5 230 OEM AMD R5 230 OEM
vs
RTX 3000 Ada Generation Mobile 3000 Ada Generation Mobile

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.2 383 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 3145 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6750 XT 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 RX 6750 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.