AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs AMD Radeon RX 560 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs AMD Radeon RX 560

The data presents a stark generational mismatch. The AMD Radeon RX 560, built on the Polaris 21 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, utterly dominates the older Radeon R7 M265 on every measurable front. In the single shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the RX 560 scores 16,472 against the R7 M265’s 4,929 — a 70.1% delta in favor of the newer card. The R7 M265 is a 2014-era entry-level mobile part (Gem System, R7 M200 generation) with just 384 shading units, while the RX 560 is a 2017 desktop GPU (Polaris, RX 500 generation) with 1,024 shading units. The benchmark data shows the RX 560 wins the sole head-to-head test, and its average benchmark score of 4,569 places it at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M265’s average of 4,929 puts it at the 29th percentile — a paradoxical situation where the older card has a slightly higher average across all its benchmarks but loses decisively in the direct comparison.

The Verdict

Who should pick which, strictly from the data? The RX 560 is the only rational choice for anyone running OpenCL workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,472 is more than triple the R7 M265’s 4,929, representing a 70.1% advantage. The RX 560 also offers a far more complete feature set for modern applications: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and has a 4 GB GDDR5 memory buffer with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth — versus the R7 M265’s 2 GB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s. The R7 M265 does have one statistical edge: its average benchmark score (4,929) exceeds the RX 560’s average (4,569) by 7.3%, but this is misleading because the R7 M265 has only one benchmark result (Geekbench OpenCL) while the RX 560 has nine, including several Passmark tests where scores are low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 57, DirectX 11 at 25). The R7 M265 is end-of-life, released on 2014-01-08, and should only be considered by someone constrained to that exact legacy hardware. The RX 560, despite also being end-of-life (released 2017-04-17), offers a launch MSRP of 99 USD and remains meaningfully superior in raw compute, memory, and API support.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 560 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, but the broader data reveals where each GPU excels. The RX 560 dominates in compute-heavy tasks: its Geekbench OpenCL score is 16,472, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 1,437. Its FP32 throughput is 2.611 TFLOPS, with matching FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) — making it suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The RX 560 also wins on memory bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 74.3% difference, which directly impacts texture-heavy and large-buffer operations. In pixel and texture processing, the RX 560’s pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s, compared to the R7 M265’s 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s. The R7 M265, however, wins in one narrow category: its average benchmark score across all its tests (4,929) is higher than the RX 560’s average (4,569). This is because the RX 560’s Passmark scores (e.g., DirectX 10 at 16, DirectX 12 at 21, G2D at 485) drag down its average, while the R7 M265 has no such low-scoring legacy tests. For API compatibility, the R7 M265 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RX 560 supports Vulkan 1.3 — a full minor version newer. The RX 560 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the R7 M265’s DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating better feature level support for modern games.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The R7 M265 uses GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die — a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The RX 560 uses GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm² — nearly double the density. This architectural leap explains the massive performance gap: the RX 560 has 1,024 shading units (versus 384), 64 texture mapping units (versus 24), and 16 ROPs (versus 8). Clock speeds also differ substantially: the RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, while the R7 M265 runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. Memory architecture is another divider: the RX 560 uses GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, while the R7 M265 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) also on a 128-bit bus. The RX 560’s 4 GB memory capacity doubles the R7 M265’s 2 GB. The power envelope is also different — the RX 560 is rated at 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 M265 has no TDP listed in the data. Production status for both is end-of-life, but the R7 M265’s predecessor is noted as “Solar System” and successor as “Polaris Mobile,” while the RX 560’s predecessor is “Arctic Islands” and successor is “Vega.”

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 560 is dramatically faster, scoring 16,472 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4,929 for the R7 M265, a 70.1% delta. This aligns with its 4x higher shading unit count (1,024 vs. 384) and 4.1x higher FP32 throughput (2.611 TFLOPS vs. 633.6 GFLOPS).

Q: Does the R7 M265 have any advantage over the RX 560?

A: In terms of average benchmark score, yes — the R7 M265 averages 4,929 across its single benchmark, while the RX 560 averages 4,569 across nine benchmarks. However, this is not a meaningful performance advantage; it reflects the RX 560’s inclusion of low-scoring legacy DirectX tests (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 57, DirectX 10 at 16).

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, while the R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 560’s faster memory type and higher clock (1750 MHz vs. 900 MHz) give it a 74.3% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU supports newer APIs?

A: The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 560’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version make it better suited for modern game engines.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics of the RX 560?

A: The RX 560 is a dual-slot card measuring 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length, with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all GPUs?

A: The R7 M265 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile. This is counterintuitive given the RX 560’s superior raw performance, but the percentile field is based on average benchmark scores, which are skewed by the RX 560’s low Passmark legacy test results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 560 wins decisively. The RX 560 scores 16,472, while the R7 M265 scores 4,929 — a delta of 70.1% in favor of the RX 560. This result is consistent with the hardware specifications: the RX 560’s FP32 compute is 2.611 TFLOPS, exactly 4.1x the R7 M265’s 633.6 GFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story — the RX 560 processes 81.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s, a 75.7% advantage. Pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, a 67.6% gap. Memory bandwidth is 112.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 74.3% gap. Beyond the head-to-head, the RX 560’s Passmark scores provide additional context: its G3D score is 3,671, and its GPU Compute score is 1,437, while its G2D score is 485. The R7 M265 has no corresponding Passmark data, so cross-benchmark comparisons are limited to the single OpenCL test. The nearest rivals for each GPU are telling: the R7 M265 sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (score 4,893) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (score 4,901), while the RX 560’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4,577 (0.2% lower) and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (1.1% higher). This places the RX 560 in a strange position — its average score is lower than the R7 M265’s, yet it beats the older card by 70.1% in the only shared test, highlighting how average scores can misrepresent real-world compute performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The R7 M265 uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the RX 560 uses Polaris 21 with GCN 4.0. Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) for the R7 M265 versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) for the RX 560. Transistor count is 950 million versus 3,000 million, and die size is 77 mm² versus 123 mm², yielding transistor densities of 12.3M/mm² and 24.4M/mm² respectively. Clock speeds: base 725 MHz vs. 1175 MHz, boost 825 MHz vs. 1275 MHz, memory 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory: 2 GB DDR3 vs. 4 GB GDDR5, both on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth 28.80 GB/s vs. 112.0 GB/s. Shading units: 384 vs. 1,024. TMUs: 24 vs. 64. ROPs: 8 vs. 16. Pixel rate: 6.600 GPixel/s vs. 20.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 19.80 GTexel/s vs. 81.60 GTexel/s. FP32: 633.6 GFLOPS vs. 2.611 TFLOPS. The RX 560 has FP16 compute of 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1), while the R7 M265 has no FP16 listing. TDP: the RX 560 is 75 W, the R7 M265 has no TDP listed. Slot width: RX 560 is dual-slot, R7 M265 has none listed. Power connectors: RX 560 has none, R7 M265 has none listed. Suggested PSU: RX 560 is 250 W, R7 M265 has none listed. Bus interface: both use PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: RX 560 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; R7 M265 has none listed. DirectX support: 12 (11_1) for R7 M265 vs. 12 (12_0) for RX 560. Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs. 1.3. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Release dates: 2014-01-08 vs. 2017-04-17. The RX 560 has a launch MSRP of 99 USD; the R7 M265 has no launch MSRP listed. Production status: both are end-of-life.