Radeon R7 265 vs Quadro P1000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P1000 with Radeon R7 265, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P1000
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
11.56
+11.3%

P1000 outperforms R7 265 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking408432
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.045.06
Power efficiency20.644.95
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGP107Pitcairn
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$375 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P1000 has 19% 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 cores6401024
Core clock speed1493 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1519 MHz925 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate48.6159.20
Floating-point processing power1.555 TFLOPS1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mm210 mm
WidthMXM Module2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.13 GB/s179.2 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.75.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.3-
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P1000 11.56
+11.3%
R7 265 10.39

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.

Quadro P1000 4787
R7 265 5220
+9%

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 HD41
+17.1%
35−40
−17.1%
4K11
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+13.7%
95−100
−13.7%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+17.8%
45−50
−17.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+13.3%
60−65
−13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Forza Horizon 4 100
+17.6%
85−90
−17.6%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+13.3%
60−65
−13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+16.9%
65−70
−16.9%
Hitman 3 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+13.3%
60−65
−13.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+22.2%
45−50
−22.2%
Hitman 3 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+20%
60−65
−20%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+17.8%
45−50
−17.8%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

This is how Quadro P1000 and R7 265 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P1000 is 17% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P1000 is 22% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.56 10.39
Recency 7 February 2017 13 February 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 150 Watt

Quadro P1000 has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P1000
Quadro P1000
AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 529 votes

Rate Quadro P1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.