Radeon Pro 560 vs R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Radeon Pro 560, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.45
+15.6%

R7 265 outperforms Pro 560 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking437482
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.24no data
Power efficiency4.808.30
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code namePitcairnPolaris 21
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)18 April 2017 (7 years 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 cores10241024
Core clock speedno data907 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2058.05
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS1.858 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6464

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s81.28 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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 10.45
+15.6%
Pro 560 9.04

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
+34.1%
Pro 560 3892

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.45 9.04
Recency 13 February 2014 18 April 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 75 Watt

R7 265 has a 15.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro 560, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
AMD Radeon Pro 560
Radeon Pro 560

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 373 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 113 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560 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.