Radeon R7 265 vs RX 480

Place in the ranking	251	437
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	15.85	5.30
Power efficiency	10.29	4.80
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	Pitcairn
GCN generation	4th Gen	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	reference
Release date	29 June 2016 (8 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 480 has 199% better value for money than R7 265.

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	2304	1024
Compute units	36	no data
Core clock speed	1120 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1266 MHz	925 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	182.3	59.20
Floating-point processing power	5.834 TFLOPS	1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	144	64

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	n/a	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	210 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1 x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	179.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	+
HDMI	2.0	+
DisplayPort support	1.4HDR	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	n/a	-
CrossFire	+	+
Enduro	n/a	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	+
HD3D	n/a	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	n/a	-
ZeroCore	+	-
UVD	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	-
Mantle	n/a	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX 480 22.37
+114%

R7 265 10.44

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.

RX 480 12186
+133%

R7 265 5220

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 HD	77 +120%	35−40 −120%
1440p	52 +117%	24−27 −117%
4K	35 +119%	16−18 −119%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.97 +43.1%	4.26 −43.1%
1440p	4.40 +41%	6.21 −41%
4K	6.54 +42.3%	9.31 −42.3%

RX 480 has 43% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 480 has 41% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 480 has 42% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +128%	18−20 −128%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Elden Ring	70−75 +140%	30−33 −140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +133%	30−33 −133%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +128%	18−20 −128%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +119%	27−30 −119%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +138%	21−24 −138%
Valorant	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +133%	30−33 −133%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +128%	18−20 −128%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Dota 2	52 +117%	24−27 −117%
Elden Ring	70−75 +140%	30−33 −140%
Far Cry 5	51 +143%	21−24 −143%
Fortnite	110−120 +130%	50−55 −130%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%
Grand Theft Auto V	78 +123%	35−40 −123%
Metro Exodus	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	78 +123%	35−40 −123%
Red Dead Redemption 2	34 +143%	14−16 −143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 +114%	14−16 −114%
Valorant	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%
World of Tanks	285 +119%	130−140 −119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +133%	30−33 −133%
Counter-Strike 2	29 +142%	12−14 −142%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Dota 2	75−80 +123%	35−40 −123%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +140%	30−33 −140%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	64 +137%	27−30 −137%
Valorant	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	37 +131%	16−18 −131%
Elden Ring	35−40 +138%	16−18 −138%
Grand Theft Auto V	37 +131%	16−18 −131%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +118%	80−85 −118%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21 +133%	9−10 −133%
World of Tanks	150−160 +114%	70−75 −114%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +114%	21−24 −114%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +115%	27−30 −115%
Metro Exodus	50 +138%	21−24 −138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Valorant	55−60 +119%	27−30 −119%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Dota 2	36 +125%	16−18 −125%
Elden Ring	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Grand Theft Auto V	36 +125%	16−18 −125%
Metro Exodus	15 +114%	7−8 −114%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70 +133%	30−33 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36 +125%	16−18 −125%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	88 +120%	40−45 −120%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +142%	12−14 −142%
Fortnite	28 +133%	12−14 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Valorant	27−30 +133%	12−14 −133%

This is how RX 480 and R7 265 compete in popular games:

RX 480 is 120% faster in 1080p
RX 480 is 117% faster in 1440p
RX 480 is 119% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.37	10.44
Recency	29 June 2016	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm

RX 480 has a 114.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.