Intel HD Graphics vs AMD Radeon R7 M265
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics and AMD Radeon R7 M265 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 month(s) later
- Around 3% higher boost clock speed: 850 MHz vs 825 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 193 vs 134
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 5 January 2015 vs 20 May 2014 |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz vs 825 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 193 vs 134 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 M265
- 3x more core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 15.2x more texture fill rate: 19.8 GTexel / s vs 1.3 GTexel / s
- 64x more pipelines: 384 vs 6
- 40.6x better floating-point performance: 633.6 gflops vs 15.6 gflops
- Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 536 vs 464
- Around 5% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5587 vs 5315
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1551 vs 470
- 193.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1551 vs 8
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 19.8 GTexel / s vs 1.3 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 6 |
| Floating-point performance | 633.6 gflops vs 15.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 536 vs 464 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 vs 5315 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 vs 470 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 vs 8 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M265
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics | AMD Radeon R7 M265 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 464 | 536 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 193 | 134 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5315 | 5587 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 470 | 1551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8 | 1551 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.031 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.392 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2424 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2424 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Code name | Broadwell GT1 | Topaz |
| Launch date | 5 January 2015 | 20 May 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 1384 | 1404 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 15.6 gflops | 633.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 6 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 1.3 GTexel / s | 19.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 1,300 million | 3,100 million |
| Compute units | 6 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Memory |
||
| Memory type | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics with others
IntelHD Graphics vs
NVIDIAGeForce 710M
IntelHD Graphics vs
AMDRadeon R7 M270
IntelHD Graphics vs
AMDRadeon R7 Mobile Graphics
IntelHD Graphics vs
AMDRadeon R7 M340
IntelHD Graphics vs
NVIDIAGeForce 910M
IntelHD Graphics vs
IntelHD Graphics 520
