Radeon R7 265 vs R9 390X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 390X and Radeon R7 265, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 390X outperforms R7 265 by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 234 | 443 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.13 | 5.32 |
| Power efficiency | 6.10 | 4.78 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Grenada | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | reference |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $429 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 390X has 90% better value for money than R7 265.
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 | 2816 | 1024 |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 184.8 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.914 TFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 176 | 64 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s | 179.2 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | + |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 91
+160%
| 35−40
−160%
|
| 4K | 48
+167%
| 18−21
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.71
−10.7%
| 4.26
+10.7%
|
| 4K | 8.94
−8%
| 8.28
+8%
|
- R7 265 has 11% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 265 has 8% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+156%
|
45−50
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+152%
|
100−105
−152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+138%
|
50−55
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+156%
|
45−50
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
+140%
|
35−40
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+138%
|
21−24
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+138%
|
50−55
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+156%
|
45−50
−156%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+149%
|
65−70
−149%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+150%
|
70−75
−150%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+135%
|
85−90
−135%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+137%
|
27−30
−137%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+157%
|
21−24
−157%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+142%
|
55−60
−142%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
This is how R9 390X and R7 265 compete in popular games:
- R9 390X is 160% faster in 1080p
- R9 390X is 167% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.42 | 10.43 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 13 February 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 150 Watt |
R9 390X has a 134.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
R7 265, on the other hand, has 83.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 390X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
