Radeon 680M vs R7 265

Place in the ranking	438	347
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.28	no data
Power efficiency	4.76	21.02
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768
Core clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	105.6
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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 x8
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
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 10.42

Radeon 680M 15.33
+47.1%

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

Radeon 680M 6865
+31.5%

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	24−27 −54.2%	37 +54.2%
1440p	10−12 −70%	17 +70%
4K	7−8 −57.1%	11 +57.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.21	no data
1440p	14.90	no data
4K	21.29	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	29 +0%	29 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	32 +0%	32 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	30 +0%	30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	47 +0%	47 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Hitman 3	27 +0%	27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +0%	43 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 +0%	40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 +0%	24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how R7 265 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

Radeon 680M is 54% faster in 1080p
Radeon 680M is 70% faster in 1440p
Radeon 680M is 57% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.42	15.33
Recency	13 February 2014	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 47.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

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