OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

AMD Radeon R7 265 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£95VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

AMD Radeon R7 265 Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon R7 265
4.3/10

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

90%

3.9

Technical score

10%

8.1

User score

â–¼Worse than 94% of graphics cards
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

4.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

3.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power & Cooling

11%

6.3

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.5

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 95%
8.1

User score

User score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 61% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

6.8

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–²Better than 61%
  • amd-radeon-r7-265
amd-radeon-r7-265
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R7 265

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

3.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power & Cooling

11%

6.3

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.5

Connectivity & Media

3.9
User score
User score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 61% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

User ratings

30%

6.8

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
8.1
Popularity
Popularity
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Popularity:
AMD Radeon R7 265 has a popularity score of 6.8 points, which is higher than that of 64.1% of products in this category.
6.8
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

70%

4.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,392 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 1,392 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.2% of graphics cards and equal to 16.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,234 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,234 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,964 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,964 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 90.9% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
1.89 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.89 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 95.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.8% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
GDDR version
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.9% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.9% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
179.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 179.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 89.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.7% of graphics cards and equal to 20.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 23.4% of graphics cards and equal to 76.6% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 95.1% of graphics cards and equal to 3.7% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 8.3% of graphics cards and equal to 88.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.7% of graphics cards and equal to 8.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.8% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 73.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
150 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 150 W under peak load, which is lower than 75.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
150 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 150 W, which is lower than that of 75.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
150 W
Show more
Size
222x 125x 36 mm
Length
210 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 210 mm long, which is shorter than 86.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Height
109 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 109 mm tall, which is shorter than 89.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
495 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 495 g, which is lighter than 91.7% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

AMD Radeon R7 265 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 75 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (210 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    210 mm vs 285 mm
  • 16 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (109 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    109 mm vs 125 mm
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 5.58x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R7 265 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £530).
    £95 vs £530
  • 5.58x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R7 265 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £530).
    £95 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 33.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (150 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    150 W vs 225 W
  • 11 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (56 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    56 °C vs 67 °C
  • 75 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (210 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    210 mm vs 285 mm
  • 16 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (109 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    109 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 51.5% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (495 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    495 g vs 1,021 g
  • 63.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 53.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (900 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    900 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 20% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R7 265 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.99 vs 7.2).
    5.99 vs 7.2
  • 63.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (925 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    925 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 53.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (900 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    900 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 84.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (59.2 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    59.2 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 81.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (29.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    29.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 91.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    1.89 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 81.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4234 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    4,234 points vs 22,653 points
  • 90.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1392 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    1,392 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 93.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    1.89 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 91.8% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    1.89 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 75.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2964 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    2,964 points vs 12,074 points
  • 75% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.12 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 70.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5600 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    5,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 60% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (179.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    179.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1400 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    16 vs 128
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 9 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2014 vs 2023).
    February 2014
    2,014 vs 2,023
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3.0 vs 4.0
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (2 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    2.0 vs 8
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • Worse SAM support
    This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5.1 vs 6.8).
    5.1 vs 6.8
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3.0
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 87.8% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2800 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    2,800 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1.0 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1).
    1.4a vs 2.1
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Narrower encode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 2.3).
    1.2 vs 2.3
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
    No vs yes
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 73% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 20 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 20 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 20 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 38 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (38 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    38 dB vs 0 dB
  • 3.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (39 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    39 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techpowerup.com
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
Sapphire Radeon R7 265 2 GB Review | TechPowerUp
A
anandtech.com
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
The AMD Radeon R7 265 & R7 260 Review: Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
G
guru3d.com
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7-265 Review - Guru 3d
H
hardwarecanucks.com
12/02/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 Review - Hardware Canucks
B
bit-tech.net
08/05/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 Review feat. XFX | bit-tech.net
H
hothardware.com
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 Mainstream GPU Review | HotHardware
B
bit-tech.net
08/05/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 Review feat. XFX | bit-tech.net
T
trustedreviews.com
21/03/2014
Summary of the review
GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Radeon R7 265: Best 1080p Graphics Card
T
tech-review.de
23/11/2014
Summary of the review
Club 3D Radeon R7 265 royalQueen: Im TRV-Test!
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
04/06/2014
Summary of the review
Club3D Radeon R7 265 royalQueen im Test
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 [Análisis Completo en Español]
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
14/02/2014
Summary of the review
Conclusioni - Tom's Hardware If you need help gathering technical benchmarks or comparing this exact GPU architecture to newer models, let me know whi...
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
13/02/2014
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon R7 265 review: aanval als beste verdediging - Battlefield 4 & Assassin's Creed 4
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about AMD Radeon R7 265

  • Strong performance for its price bracket, often outperforming the NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti
  • Excellent for 1080p gaming on medium to high settings
  • High overclocking potential, with some users reaching significant speed increases
  • Runs relatively cool and quiet under load, particularly with third-party coolers like Sapphire's Dual-X
  • Mature and stable drivers due to the established Pitcairn architecture
  • Compact physical size (approx. 20-21cm) making it suitable for HTPC and small builds

What we don't like about AMD Radeon R7 265

  • Higher power consumption (150W TDP) compared to more efficient competitors like the Maxwell-based GTX 750 Ti
  • Lacks support for newer AMD features like TrueAudio
  • Primarily a rebrand of the older Radeon HD 7850, offering little architectural innovation
  • Limited future-proofing for newer DirectX 12 titles as it only supports feature level 11_1
  • Single 6-pin power connector required, which may be a constraint for very low-end power supplies

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 265 is a mid-range graphics card based on the 28nm Pitcairn (Curacao) architecture, featuring 1024 stream processors, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It is equipped with 2GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s with a base core clock of 900 MHz and a boost up to 925 MHz. Main characteristics include support for DirectX 12 (feature level 11_1), Mantle, and CrossFire, requiring a single 6-pin power connector for its 150W TDP. Its primary pros are its strong 1080p gaming performance and excellent price-to-performance ratio at launch. However, notable cons include a higher power consumption compared to competitors like the GTX 750 Ti and the lack of support for AMD's TrueAudio technology.

Compare AMD Radeon R7 265 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon R7 265 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found