Arc A770 vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	433	154
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.05	54.55
Power efficiency	4.80	10.36
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	DG2-512
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A770 has 980% 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	1024	4096
Core clock speed	no data	2100 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	614.4
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	128
TMUs	64	256
Tensor Cores	no data	512
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	512.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+

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	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	-	1.3

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.

R7 265 10.39

Arc A770 33.67
+224%

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.

R7 265 5220

Arc A770 32666
+526%

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	35−40 −237%	118 +237%
1440p	21−24 −233%	70 +233%
4K	12−14 −242%	41 +242%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.26	2.79
1440p	7.10	4.70
4K	12.42	8.02

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65 +0%	65 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	92 +0%	92 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	31 +0%	31 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	258 +0%	258 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45 +0%	45 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	72 +0%	72 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +0%	23 +0%
Hitman 3	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	121 +0%	121 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	216 +0%	216 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	72 +0%	72 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	74 +0%	74 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70

+0%

65−70

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40 +0%	40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +0%	60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +0%	100 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	158 +0%	158 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +0%	60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	83 +0%	83 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +0%	73 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +0%	30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8 +0%	8 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	89 +0%	89 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	37 +0%	37 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+0%

21−24

+0%

This is how R7 265 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

Arc A770 is 237% faster in 1080p
Arc A770 is 233% faster in 1440p
Arc A770 is 242% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.39	33.67
Recency	13 February 2014	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	225 Watt

R7 265 has 50% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 224.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 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.