Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 and Radeon R7 265, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 680 outperforms R7 265 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 361 | 437 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.01 | 5.24 |
| Power efficiency | 5.12 | 4.80 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 265 has 74% better value for money than GTX 680.
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 | 1536 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | 210 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 45
+50%
| 30−35
−50%
|
| Full HD | 75
+50%
| 50−55
−50%
|
| 4K | 26
+44.4%
| 18−20
−44.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65
−123%
| 2.98
+123%
|
| 4K | 19.19
−132%
| 8.28
+132%
|
- R7 265 has 123% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 265 has 132% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+45%
|
40−45
−45%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+47.3%
|
55−60
−47.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+48.1%
|
27−30
−48.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+40%
|
75−80
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+45%
|
40−45
−45%
|
| World of Tanks | 224
+40%
|
160−170
−40%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+40%
|
75−80
−40%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+45%
|
40−45
−45%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+38.9%
|
90−95
−38.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−110
+45.7%
|
70−75
−45.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
This is how GTX 680 and R7 265 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680 is 50% faster in 900p
- GTX 680 is 50% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680 is 44% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.50 | 10.45 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 13 February 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 680 has a 38.8% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 265, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 30% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
