Quadro CX vs Radeon R7 A265
Quadro CX
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 A265
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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 Quadro CX is positioned at rank 383 and the Radeon R7 A265 is on rank 427, so the Quadro CX offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro CX
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 A265
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R7 A265 is significantly newer (2014 vs 2008). The Radeon R7 A265 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro CX lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 A265 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro CX offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 A265 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 A265 holds the technical lead. Priced at $149 (vs $500), it costs 70% less, resulting in a 252.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+252.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro CX and Radeon R7 A265
Quadro CX
The Quadro CX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 947 points. Launch price was $1,999.
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
In G3D Mark, the Quadro CX scores 947 versus the Radeon R7 A265's 994 — the Radeon R7 A265 leads by 5%. The Quadro CX is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon R7 A265 uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro CX) vs 384 (Radeon R7 A265). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro CX) vs 0.6336 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 A265).
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 947 | 994+5% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 384+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 0.6336 TFLOPS+37% |
| ROPs | 24+200% | 8 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro CX | 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 Quadro CX comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 A265 has 512 MB. The Quadro CX offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 192 KB (Quadro CX) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 A265) — the Radeon R7 A265 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro CX) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 A265). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.1. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1)+8% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5+36% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Quadro CX) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 A265). Decoder: PureVideo HD vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro CX) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R7 A265).
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro CX draws 150W versus the Radeon R7 A265's 30W — a 133.3% difference. The Radeon R7 A265 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro CX) vs 350W (Radeon R7 A265). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75.
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 30W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 75-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 6.3 | 33.1+425% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro CX launched at $1999 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Radeon R7 A265 launched at $149 and now averages $149. The Radeon R7 A265 costs 70.2% less ($351 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.9 (Quadro CX) vs 6.7 (Radeon R7 A265) — the Radeon R7 A265 offers 252.6% better value. The Radeon R7 A265 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro CX | Radeon R7 A265 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1999 | $149-93% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $149-70% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.9 | 6.7+253% |
| Codename | GT200B | Opal |
| Release | November 11 2008 | January 9 2014 |
| Ranking | #901 | #890 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro CX and Radeon R7 A265
