Radeon R7 265 vs RX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 and Radeon R7 265, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 265 outperforms RX 560 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 435 | 404 |
| Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.53 | 1.72 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $149 |
| Current price | $381 (3.8x MSRP) | $242 (1.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 265 has 12% better value for money than RX 560.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,611 gflops | 1,894 gflops |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 179.2 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
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 | 35
+0%
| 35−40
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.44 | 10.37 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 13 February 2014 |
| Cost | $99 | $149 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 560 and Radeon R7 265.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
