Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) vs GeForce GTX 465

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 465 with Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), including specs and performance data.

GTX 465
2010, $279
1 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
6.35
+253%

GTX 465 outperforms R7 (Bristol Ridge) by a whopping 253% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking625972
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.08no data
Power efficiency2.443.08
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 1.2 (2016)
GPU code nameGF100Bristol Ridge
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date31 May 2010 (15 years ago)1 June 2016 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores352512
Core clock speed607 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt12-45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.75no data
Floating-point processing power0.8554 TFLOPSno data
Compute performance30xno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs44no data
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1603 MHz (3206 data rate)no data
Memory bandwidth102.6 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMIno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.2no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 465 6.35
+253%
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 1.80

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 465 2650
+251%
Samples: 556
R7 (Bristol Ridge) 754

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 HD45−50
+221%
14
−221%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.20no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5
+0%
5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GTX 465 and R7 (Bristol Ridge) compete in popular games:

  • GTX 465 is 221% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.35 1.80
Recency 31 May 2010 1 June 2016
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 12 Watt

GTX 465 has a 253% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 (Bristol Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 1567% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 465 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 465 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.6 126 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 49 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 465 or Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.