Radeon R7 265 vs R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 and Radeon R7 265, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 295X2
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
22.34
+115%

R9 295X2 outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking247430
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.395.07
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameVesuviusPitcairn
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferencereference
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 112% better value for money than R9 295X2.

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 cores28161024
Boost clock speed1018 MHz925 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)500 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate179.259.20
Floating-point processing power5.733 gflops1.894 gflops

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 supportPCIe 2.1 x16PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length307 mm210 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pin1 x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s179.2 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity++
HDMI++

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire++
FreeSync++
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio++

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+-

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.

R9 295X2 22.34
+115%
R7 265 10.39

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.

R9 295X2 21197
+306%
R7 265 5220

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 22.34 10.39
Recency 29 April 2014 13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 500 Watt 150 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 115% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R7 265, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 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 R9 295X2
Radeon R9 295X2
AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265

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.


3.7 93 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 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.