AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is the faster GPU, decisively. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the M265 scores 4,929 against the R7 Graphics' 4,015, a swing of 18.5% in favor of the discrete mobile part. Anyone choosing between these two should select the M265 for raw compute throughput. The R7 Graphics, as an integrated processor graphics solution, is not competitive here; its average benchmark score of 4,998 (across two tests) is misleadingly boosted by a relatively strong Vulkan result, but its OpenCL score is the relevant comparison against the M265, and it loses clearly. For users constrained to an IGP, the R7 Graphics is serviceable, but the M265 is the performance pick without qualification.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, which explains the performance gap. The R7 M265 is built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Opal" chip, while the R7 Graphics is a newer design, based on GCN 2.0 and the "Spectre Lite" chip. This is a case where the newer architecture does not automatically translate to more speed, as the M265's dedicated memory and higher clocks overcome any architectural advantage.

The process nodes are the same — both are fabricated on a 28 nm process — but the foundries differ. AMD fabricated the R7 Graphics at GlobalFoundries, while TSMC produced the M265. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the R7 Graphics integrates 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, yielding a density of 9.8 million transistors per mm². The M265 is far smaller, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a higher density of 12.3 million per mm². The smaller, denser chip confirms the M265's more focused design as a discrete GPU rather than a large IGP block.

Core configuration is identical in count: both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. However, the clock speeds tell the real story. The R7 Graphics has no listed base or boost clock, relying on system-dependent operation. The M265 runs at a base clock of 725 MHz and boosts to 825 MHz. This clock advantage directly translates to higher throughput rates: the M265 posts a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, versus 5.760 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s for the R7 Graphics. FP32 compute follows the same pattern, with the M265 at 633.6 GFLOPS against 553.0 GFLOPS for the IGP.

Memory is the most fundamental split. The R7 Graphics uses "System Shared" memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent" — a major bottleneck. The M265 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory pool is the primary reason the M265 wins in practice, as it does not contend with the CPU for bandwidth.

API support shows subtle differences. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. DirectX support differs: the R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the M265 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 Graphics has a slight API advantage for modern titles, though it does not overcome the M265's raw performance lead. The bus interface also differs: the R7 Graphics is an IGP (integrated), while the M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4,929 versus 4,015 for the R7 Graphics, a delta of 18.5% in favor of the M265.

Q: Does the R7 Graphics have any architectural advantage?

A: Yes. The R7 Graphics uses the newer GCN 2.0 architecture (chip: Spectre Lite), while the M265 uses GCN 1.0 (chip: Opal). The R7 Graphics also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) compared to the M265's DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Why does the M265 perform better despite the R7 Graphics having more transistors?

A: The R7 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, but it relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The M265 has 950 million transistors but features 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, plus higher clocks (725 MHz base, 825 MHz boost).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The R7 Graphics uses System Shared memory with System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a 128-bit bus, and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as End-of-life. The R7 Graphics was released on 2014-02-16, and the M265 was released on 2014-01-08.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R7 Graphics (average score 4,998) is within 0.7% of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970). The M265 (average score 4,929) is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893) and 0.5% of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. The R7 Graphics uses the GCN 2.0 architecture with the Spectre Lite chip, while the M265 uses GCN 1.0 with the Opal chip. The process nodes are both 28 nm, but the foundries differ (GlobalFoundries for the R7 Graphics, TSMC for the M265). Transistor counts are 2,410 million versus 950 million, and die sizes are 245 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density is higher on the M265 at 12.3M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm².

Clock speeds are only listed for the M265: base 725 MHz, boost 825 MHz, and memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 Graphics has no listed clocks, with memory speed noted as "System Shared." Memory configuration is the biggest split: the R7 Graphics uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while the M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Both have identical core counts (384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 8 ROPs), but the resulting rates differ. The R7 Graphics delivers 5.760 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s with 553.0 GFLOPS FP32. The M265 delivers 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s with 633.6 GFLOPS FP32. The M265 has a TDP listed as null, while the R7 Graphics is rated at 25 W. The R7 Graphics is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support favors the R7 Graphics (12_0 versus 11_1), while both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is exactly one head-to-head benchmark in the data, and it is an unambiguous win for the AMD Radeon R7 M265. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M265 scores 4,929, while the R7 Graphics scores 4,015. The delta is 18.5% in favor of the M265 — a substantial margin that indicates a clear performance tier difference. This is not a close contest; the M265 is meaningfully faster in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture reinforces this. The R7 Graphics has two benchmark results: Geekbench OpenCL at 4,015 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5,980. Its average benchmark score is 4,998, which places it at the 29th percentile of all GPUs. The M265 has only one benchmark result — Geekbench OpenCL at 4,929 — but that single score gives it an identical 29th percentile ranking. The M265's average score is 4,929.

The nearest rivals for each GPU provide context. The R7 Graphics (4,998 average) sits between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4,979, 0.4% behind) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018, 0.4% ahead), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970, 0.6% behind) and AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034, 0.7% ahead) nearby. The M265 (4,929 average) is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931, 0% delta) and sits slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904, 0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901, 0.6% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893, 0.7% ahead). The M265's single benchmark score puts it in the same performance neighborhood as these rivals, while the R7 Graphics' Vulkan score inflates its average.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins in every direct compute comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,929 is 18.5% higher than the R7 Graphics' 4,015. It also wins on raw throughput metrics: higher pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s versus 5.760 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (19.80 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (633.6 GFLOPS versus 553.0 GFLOPS). The M265's dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage over the R7 Graphics' system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. For any workload that stresses sustained compute — OpenCL tasks, GPGPU applications, or games that leverage compute shaders — the M265 is the clear choice.

The R7 Graphics has one niche where it holds a technical edge: API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a more recent feature level than the M265's DirectX 12 (11_1). For software that specifically requires DirectX 12_0 features, the R7 Graphics is the only option between the two. It also has a Vulkan score of 5,980, which suggests it can perform well in Vulkan workloads relative to its OpenCL showing. However, this Vulkan result is not directly comparable to the M265, as no Vulkan benchmark exists for the M265 in the data.

The R7 Graphics also has a lower TDP at 25 W, making it a more power-efficient choice for systems where power draw is a constraint. As an IGP, it requires no separate card slot and uses system memory, which can be an advantage in compact or low-power builds. But these are practical trade-offs, not performance wins. In terms of pure benchmark scores, the M265 wins the only head-to-head test, and it wins on every measurable performance spec. The verdict is straightforward: choose the M265 for performance, and consider the R7 Graphics only if you need its newer DirectX support or are limited to an integrated solution.