Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce GTX 1050

Place in the ranking	389	438
Place by popularity	15	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	11.35	5.27
Power efficiency	11.93	4.76
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP107	Pitcairn
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	25 October 2016 (8 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1050 has 115% 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	640	1024
Core clock speed	1290 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1392 MHz	925 MHz
Number of transistors	3,300 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	58.20	59.20
Floating-point processing power	1.862 TFLOPS	1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	40	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	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	145 mm	210 mm
Height	4.38" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	300 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	1 x 6-pin
SLI	-	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112 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	DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	2.2	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

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	+
GameStream	+	-
GPU Boost	3.0	no data
VR Ready	+	no data
Ansel	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	+	-

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.

GTX 1050 13.06
+25.5%

R7 265 10.41

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.

GTX 1050 6797
+30.2%

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	43 +43.3%	30−35 −43.3%
1440p	20 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
4K	21 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.53	4.97
1440p	5.45	10.64
4K	5.19	9.31

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

20−22
+42.9%

14−16

−42.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	38 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Battlefield 5	43 +43.3%	30−33 −43.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +33.3%	27−30 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +32.3%	65−70 −32.3%
Hitman 3	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +36%	50−55 −36%
Metro Exodus	46 +31.4%	35−40 −31.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +33.3%	27−30 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	52 +30%	40−45 −30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +32.7%	55−60 −32.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	49 +40%	35−40 −40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Battlefield 5	35 +29.6%	27−30 −29.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Far Cry 5	33 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	16 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +32.3%	65−70 −32.3%
Hitman 3	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +36%	50−55 −36%
Metro Exodus	37 +37%	27−30 −37%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +33.3%	27−30 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35 +29.6%	27−30 −29.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +32.7%	55−60 −32.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Far Cry 5	23 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Forza Horizon 4	34 +25.9%	27−30 −25.9%
Hitman 3	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	26 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	31 +29.2%	24−27 −29.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +32.7%	55−60 −32.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+33.3%

27−30

−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +30%	50−55 −30%
Hitman 3	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +28.6%	21−24 −28.6%
Metro Exodus	25 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +35%	60−65 −35%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+31.3%

16−18

−31.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +26%	50−55 −26%
Metro Exodus	12 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +50%	10−11 −50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+33.3%

9−10
−33.3%

This is how GTX 1050 and R7 265 compete in popular games:

GTX 1050 is 43% faster in 1080p
GTX 1050 is 43% faster in 1440p
GTX 1050 is 31% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.06	10.41
Recency	25 October 2016	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	150 Watt

GTX 1050 has a 25.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

R7 265, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 1050 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.