NVIDIA
GeForce 8500 GT vs Radeon R7 265
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 8500 GT and R7 265 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗8500 GT outperforms R7 265 by ~21% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+21%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 8500 GT (~20%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 8500 GT
- Higher catalog performance index
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider R7 265
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
4134
10076
100100
756
Graphics card ranking
Positions 61–66of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 8500 GT
157 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 8500 GT
Price $18.00Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
41Better
34
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
36Better
31
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
76
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
59Better
49
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Transistor countBetter
LengthBetter
Device class
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Vulkan
DisplayPort
HDMI
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 8500 GT and R7 265 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
8500 GTR7 265
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
196 FPS
173 FPS
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
118 FPS
1440p Ultra
87 FPS
64 FPS
4K Ultra
33 FPS
23 FPS
Counter-Strike 28500 GT196 FPSR7 265173 FPS8500 GT138 FPSR7 265118 FPS8500 GT87 FPSR7 26564 FPS8500 GT33 FPSR7 26523 FPS
Cyberpunk 20778500 GT127 FPSR7 265111 FPS8500 GT109 FPSR7 26593 FPS8500 GT63 FPSR7 26546 FPS8500 GT22 FPSR7 26516 FPS
Forza Horizon 58500 GT160 FPSR7 265140 FPS8500 GT103 FPSR7 26588 FPS8500 GT79 FPSR7 26558 FPS8500 GT48 FPSR7 26534 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy8500 GT103 FPSR7 26591 FPS8500 GT86 FPSR7 26574 FPS8500 GT57 FPSR7 26542 FPS8500 GT22 FPSR7 26516 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100413419%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100323714%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100314025%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100756156%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001007627%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100264451%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100274346%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100314025%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100224671%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100314025%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.011.1
VulkanNot supported1.2
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaGCN 1.0
Process node80 nm28 nmBetter
Release date20072014
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count210 million2800 millionBetter
Die size127 mm²Better212 mm²
Shader units / cores161024Better
Base clock459 MHz900 MHzBetter
Boost clock459 MHz900 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 1x16PCIe 3x16
Length229 mm210 mmBetter
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU200 WBetter450 W
Power connectorNone6 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16004096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM256 MB DDR2Better2 GB GDDR5
Memory typeDDR2GDDR5
Memory bus128 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.0291.894Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (6)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (4)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 8500 GT or R7 265?+
8500 GT has the higher overall gaming score, while 8500 GT offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
8500 GT is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
8500 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
8500 GT offers more overall performance, while 8500 GT offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
8500 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
8500 GT is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
8500 GT leads in combined 1440p performance. 8500 GT can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
8500 GT is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
8500 GT is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
8500 GT is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 8500 GT if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.