GeForce 830M vs Radeon R7 M265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M265 and GeForce 830M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 M265
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.41

830M outperforms R7 M265 by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1007820
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data5.80
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameTopazGM108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date20 May 2014 (10 years ago)12 March 2014 (10 years ago)

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 cores384256
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed900 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speed825 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data33 Watt
Texture fill rate23.5218.40
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS0.5888 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2416

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimus-+
GameWorks-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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 M265 1.41
GeForce 830M 2.61
+85.1%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R7 M265 545
GeForce 830M 1008
+85%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R7 M265 6175
+0.2%
GeForce 830M 6163

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R7 M265 1882
GeForce 830M 1961
+4.2%

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 M265 1336
GeForce 830M 1387
+3.8%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R7 M265 8402
+3.7%
GeForce 830M 8105

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 HD14
−21.4%
17
+21.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−15.2%
35−40
+15.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−23.8%
26
+23.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−15.2%
35−40
+15.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+83.3%
6
−83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−15.2%
35−40
+15.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 2−3
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how R7 M265 and GeForce 830M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 830M is 21% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 M265 is 83% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 830M is 333% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 M265 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • GeForce 830M is ahead in 45 tests (83%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 2.61
Recency 20 May 2014 12 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

R7 M265 has an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce 830M, on the other hand, has a 85.1% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce 830M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265 in performance tests.


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 M265
Radeon R7 M265
NVIDIA GeForce 830M
GeForce 830M

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.


3 114 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 105 votes

Rate GeForce 830M 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.