GeForce 830M vs Radeon R7 A265

GeForce 830M

2014Core: 1082 MHzBoost: 1150 MHz

Radeon R7 A265

2014Core: 725 MHzBoost: 825 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce 830M

1,005

+1.1%

GeForce GTX 1070 (móvel)

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

Radeon R7 A265

994

0.0%

Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire

Radeon RX 7600M

Radeon RX 6700S

Radeon RX 6700 XT

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 830M is positioned at rank 157 and the Radeon R7 A265 is on rank 427, so the GeForce 830M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 830M

#42

Radeon RX 6600S

MSRP: $400|Avg: $400

97%

#43

Radeon RX 8060S

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

96%

#147

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

324%

#149

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

294%

#150

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

293%

#154

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

266%

#155

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

265%

#157

GeForce 830M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

100%

#158

GeForce GT 750M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

99%

#159

GeForce GT 425M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $25

99%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 A265

#417

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1628%

#419

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1476%

#420

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1472%

#424

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1338%

#425

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1329%

#427

Radeon R7 A265

MSRP: $149|Avg: $149

100%

#428

Radeon R9 M470

MSRP: $350|Avg: $80

100%

#429

Radeon R9 M385X

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

100%

#431

Radeon R5 M430

MSRP: $99|Avg: $20

98%

#432

Mobility Radeon HD 5570

MSRP: $80|Avg: $20

98%

#433

GeForce 810A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

98%

#434

GeForce GT 520MX

MSRP: $45|Avg: $10

97%

#435

Radeon R5 330

MSRP: $81|Avg: $45

97%

#437

Radeon HD 8450G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

96%

#438

Radeon R3

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

94%

#439

Radeon HD 7520G + HD 8600/8700M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

94%

#441

Radeon HD 8550G + 8600M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce 830M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (2 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 A265.

Insight	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce 830M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 830M holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $149), it costs 80% less, resulting in a 402.2% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+402.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($30)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($149)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce 830M Benchmark Check

Radeon R7 A265 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 830M and Radeon R7 A265

GeForce 830M

The GeForce 830M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 12 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1150 MHz. It has 256 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,005 points.

Radeon R7 A265

The Radeon R7 A265 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 9 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 725 MHz to 825 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 994 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 830M scores 1,005 and the Radeon R7 A265 reaches 994 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 830M is built on Maxwell while the Radeon R7 A265 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 256 (GeForce 830M) vs 384 (Radeon R7 A265). Raw compute: 0.5888 TFLOPS (GeForce 830M) vs 0.6336 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 A265). Boost clocks: 1150 MHz vs 825 MHz.

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
G3D Mark Score	1,005+1%	994
Architecture	Maxwell	GCN 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	256	384+50%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.5888 TFLOPS	0.6336 TFLOPS+8%
Boost Clock	1150 MHz+39%	825 MHz
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	24+50%
L1 Cache	128 KB+33%	96 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce 830M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 A265 has 512 MB. The GeForce 830M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 830M) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 A265) — the GeForce 830M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
VRAM Capacity	2 GB+300%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce 830M) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 A265). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.1	1.1
OpenGL	4.6+2%	4.5
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce 830M) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 A265). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP6) vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,MPEG-2 (GeForce 830M) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R7 A265).

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
Encoder	NVENC (Maxwell)	VCE 1.0
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP6)	UVD 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265,MPEG-2	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 830M draws 33W versus the Radeon R7 A265's 30W — a 9.5% difference. The Radeon R7 A265 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 830M) vs 350W (Radeon R7 A265). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75.

Feature	GeForce 830M	Radeon R7 A265
TDP	33W	30W-9%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0	0
Temp (Load)	75	75
Perf/Watt	30.5	33.1+9%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce 830M costs 79.9% less ($119 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 33.5 (GeForce 830M) vs 6.7 (Radeon R7 A265) — the GeForce 830M offers 400% better value.