AMD
FirePro W4300 vs Radeon R7 265
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4300 and R7 265 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗FirePro W4300 outperforms R7 265 by ~6% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+6%
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: FirePro W4300 (~6%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider FirePro W4300
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider R7 265
- Higher catalog performance index
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3234
10076
100100
5656
Graphics card ranking
Positions 16–21of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon R7 265
126 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Radeon R7 265
Price $45.00Based 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
32
34Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
29
31Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
27
28Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
76
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
52Better
49
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
ArchitectureBetter
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 node
Recommended PSUBetter
LengthBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Transistor countBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
HDMI
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares FirePro W4300 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.
FirePro W4300R7 265
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
162 FPS
173 FPS
1080p Ultra
112 FPS
118 FPS
1440p Ultra
62 FPS
64 FPS
4K Ultra
22 FPS
23 FPS
Counter-Strike 2FirePro W4300162 FPSR7 265173 FPSFirePro W4300112 FPSR7 265118 FPSFirePro W430062 FPSR7 26564 FPSFirePro W430022 FPSR7 26523 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077FirePro W4300104 FPSR7 265111 FPSFirePro W430088 FPSR7 26593 FPSFirePro W430045 FPSR7 26546 FPSFirePro W430014 FPSR7 26516 FPS
Forza Horizon 5FirePro W4300132 FPSR7 265140 FPSFirePro W430084 FPSR7 26588 FPSFirePro W430055 FPSR7 26558 FPSFirePro W430032 FPSR7 26534 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyFirePro W430085 FPSR7 26591 FPSFirePro W430070 FPSR7 26574 FPSFirePro W430040 FPSR7 26542 FPSFirePro W430015 FPSR7 26516 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10032346%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10035376%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10039403%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10056560%
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 / 10043442%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10041435%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10039403%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10045462%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10039403%
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
DirectX12.011.1
Vulkan1.21.2
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 2.1OpenCL 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 2.0BetterGCN 1.0
Process node28 nm28 nm
Release date20152014
Device classProfDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count2080 million2800 millionBetter
Die size160 mm²Better212 mm²
Shader units / cores7681024Better
Base clock930 MHzBetter900 MHz
Boost clock930 MHzBetter900 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3x16
Length171 mmBetter210 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU250 WBetter450 W
Power connectorNone6 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortmini-DisplayPort 1.2DisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors44
Max resolution4096 × 21604096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM4 GB GDDR5Better2 GB GDDR5
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Memory bus128 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS1.4291.894Better
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 (3)
- · 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: FirePro W4300 or R7 265?+
FirePro W4300 has the higher overall gaming score, while FirePro W4300 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
FirePro W4300 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?+
FirePro W4300 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
FirePro W4300 offers more overall performance, while FirePro W4300 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
FirePro W4300 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
FirePro W4300 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
FirePro W4300 leads in combined 1440p performance. FirePro W4300 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
FirePro W4300 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
FirePro W4300 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?+
FirePro W4300 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 FirePro W4300 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.