GeForce 8800 Ultra vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	436	941
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.25	0.02
Power efficiency	4.83	0.68
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	G80
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	2 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$829

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 26150% better value for money than 8800 Ultra.

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	612
Core clock speed	no data	612 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	681 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	171 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	39.17
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	0.3871 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	24
TMUs	64	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 1.0 x16
Length	210 mm	270 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	2x 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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	1080 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	103.7 GB/s

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	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
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	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.39	1.66
Recency	13 February 2014	2 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	171 Watt

R7 265 has a 525.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 14% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 Ultra in performance tests.

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