AMD
Radeon R7 265 vs GeForce 840M
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GeForce 840M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared R7 265 and GeForce 840M across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R7 265 outperforms GeForce 840M by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
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: Radeon R7 265 (~14%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider R7 265
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Reasons to consider GeForce 840M
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 5.0 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3431
76100
10054
5643
Graphics card ranking
Positions 195–200of 321
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.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
34Better
31
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
31Better
29
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
28Better
26
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
76
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
49Better
43
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
TFLOPSBetter
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
Power consumptionBetter
Length
Thickness
Launch price—
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Compute API
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process node
Recommended PSU
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Transistor countBetter
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares R7 265 and GeForce 840M 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.
R7 265GeForce 840M
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
173 FPS
154 FPS
1080p Ultra
118 FPS
108 FPS
1440p Ultra
64 FPS
58 FPS
4K Ultra
23 FPS
21 FPS
Counter-Strike 2R7 265173 FPSGeForce 840M154 FPSR7 265118 FPSGeForce 840M108 FPSR7 26564 FPSGeForce 840M58 FPSR7 26523 FPSGeForce 840M21 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077R7 265111 FPSGeForce 840M100 FPSR7 26593 FPSGeForce 840M86 FPSR7 26546 FPSGeForce 840M42 FPSR7 26516 FPSGeForce 840M14 FPS
Forza Horizon 5R7 265140 FPSGeForce 840M126 FPSR7 26588 FPSGeForce 840M81 FPSR7 26558 FPSGeForce 840M52 FPSR7 26534 FPSGeForce 840M31 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyR7 26591 FPSGeForce 840M81 FPSR7 26574 FPSGeForce 840M68 FPSR7 26542 FPSGeForce 840M38 FPSR7 26516 FPSGeForce 840M14 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10034319%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10037348%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100403416%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100564326%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1007610027%
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 / 100443620%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100433618%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100403416%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100463819%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100403513%
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
DirectX11.111.0
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 1.2OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 5.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 1.0Kepler / Maxwell
Process node28 nm28 nm
Release date20142014
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count2800 millionBetter1020 million
Die size212 mm²77 mm²Better
Shader units / cores1024Better384
Base clock900 MHz1029 MHzBetter
Boost clock900 MHz1124 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length210 mmOEM dependent
ThicknessDual-slotIGP
Recommended PSU450 WOEM dependent
Power connector6 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 1.4aOEM dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.2OEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors4OEM dependent
Max resolution4096 × 2160Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM2 GB GDDR52 GB DDR3
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5 / DDR3
Memory bus256 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS1.894Better0.863
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 / 69
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 (4)
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: R7 265 or GeForce 840M?+
R7 265 has the higher overall gaming score, while R7 265 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GeForce 840M 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?+
GeForce 840M is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
R7 265 offers more overall performance, while R7 265 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GeForce 840M is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R7 265 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
R7 265 leads in combined 1440p performance. R7 265 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
R7 265 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GeForce 840M 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?+
GeForce 840M 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 R7 265 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.