P106-090 vs Radeon R7 M265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M265 with P106-090, including specs and performance data.

R7 M265
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.41

P106-090 outperforms R7 M265 by a whopping 330% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1001581
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data5.64
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTopazGP106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date20 May 2014 (10 years ago)31 July 2017 (7 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 cores384768
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed900 MHz1354 MHz
Boost clock speed825 MHz1531 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rate23.5273.49
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS2.352 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs2448

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 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data250 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB3 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2002 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s192.2 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+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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
P106-090 6.07
+330%

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
P106-090 2342
+330%

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
−329%
60−65
+329%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−300%
60−65
+300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−300%
60−65
+300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−329%
90−95
+329%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−300%
60−65
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−309%
45−50
+309%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−324%
140−150
+324%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

This is how R7 M265 and P106-090 compete in popular games:

  • P106-090 is 329% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 6.07
Recency 20 May 2014 31 July 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 3 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm

R7 M265 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

P106-090, on the other hand, has a 330.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The P106-090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M265 is a notebook card while P106-090 is a 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 M265
Radeon R7 M265
NVIDIA P106-090
P106-090

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.


3 115 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 49 votes

Rate P106-090 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.