Skip navigation
Log in to create and rate content, and to follow, bookmark, and share content with other members. Not a member? Join Now!
AnsweredAssumed Answered

Slow game play with unreal 3 games and r265 because of poor drivers

Question asked by on Jun 2, 2015
Latest reply on Jun 3, 2015 by

I just picked up a r7 265 and noticed its performance isn't great with the new unreal 3 ingine and games. Playing dying light there's lag stutter problems at times. Also in crysis 3 witch isn't unreal there's some lag stutter problems as well. I suspect its the drivers including the latest ones given Amd doesn't have a good history with quality drivers. Please get your drivers optimized for the love of God Amd!


Also make sure they install properly because the catalyst install packages are buggy and cause errors on install at times.


    • kingfish

      What do you mean "isn't great"? Because you posted no information about your computer or the graphics you previously had,  any response you get will be a guess. Are you running Windows XP with a Pentium 2 processor?


          Running Amd athlon x3 3ghz with 4 gigs ram

          And r7 265 and windows 7 64 bit. Was running a 5770 before so there might be a bit of a bottleneck on the CPU now. Granted CPU is a bit slower than recomened for dying light but should be OK.

          Also crysis 3 doesn't require nearly as much horsepower as dying light which is unreal 4 ingine and is running lowsy too.. Correct in on post unreal 4 ingine games don't run well on the latest and cards because of poor drivers.

            • black_zion

              The 265 is only slightly faster than a 5770, neither are what you would call "gamer class" GPUs. That is why your performance isn't that great.


                  Not true a R7 265 should be plenty for crysis 3 And should work OK for dying light it only requires a R7 260x. And besides crysis 3 was working OK with my 5770 which means the newest drivers are poor.

                    • black_zion

                      Crysis 3 on low settings, and a 260X is faster than a 265.


                          Lol not true R7 260X is not faster than a R7 265

                            • kingfish

                              The R7 265 is a faster card and plenty of benchmarks to prove it. Speaking of benchmarks, I went to Passmark which has benchmarked every card from all manufacturers. The R7 265 is not listed...260 & 260x & 270 etc are all there. So I went to the forum and found the answer why :


                              Question Why is R7 265 missing from all charts and generally under the radar?

                              Its rather hard to find any comparisons or just as much as mentions about the successor of the HD 7850, and im pretty unsure why.
                              Also, why is it completely missing from passmark stats, list and forums?

                              • Default

                                The consensus out there seems to speculate that R7 265 is an overclocked/rebranded 7850. As such our software may not be able to differentiate between the two. The results for R7 265 may very well be lumped in with Radeon 7850. If we were to speculate the performance should be slightly better than a standard 7850.
                              • black_zion

                                Depends on how you define faster. I define it as compute performance, which the 260X is better at.


                                Specifications Full list of technical specs


                                Radeon R7 265 vs 260X
                                GPU brand AMD AMD
                                GPU name Pitcairn Bonaire
                                Market Desktop Desktop
                                Clock speed 900 MHz 1,100 MHz
                                Is dual GPU No No
                                Reference card None None

                                raw performance

                                Shading units 1,024 896
                                Texture mapping units 64 56
                                Render output processors 32 16
                                Compute units 16 14
                                Pixel rate 28.8 GPixel/s 17.6 GPixel/s
                                Texture rate 57.6 GTexel/s 61.6 GTexel/s
                                Floating-point performance 1,843 GFLOPS 1,971 GFLOPS


                                Radeon R7 265 vs 260X
                                Memory clock speed 1,400 MHz 1,625 MHz
                                Effective memory clock speed 5,600 MHz 6,500 MHz
                                Memory bus 256 bit 128 bit
                                Memory 2,048 MB 2,048 MB
                                Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5

                                noise and power






                                    R7 265 higher shading units and pixel rate

                                    And 256 bus. Vs 128 bus on R7 260x. From what I've read multiple sources R7 265 falls in between R7 260x and R9 270

                                      • Cornugon

                                        So yes your R7 265 is faster. It's likely though, and even suggested with the 'Pentium 2' remark by kingfish and noted by yourself, that you run into CPU limitations with your triple-core Athlon. Especially Dying Light gives an AMD FX 8320 (an 8-core) or an Intel i5 2500K (quad-core) up as a minimum CPU requirement. Both having a pretty huge gap between them and your unspecified Athlon.


                                        You should be 'fine' for Crysis 3, since you pass the minimum reqs there. However Crysis 3, like all of it's predecessors, isn't that well optimised, since it even lags and stutters on my system (double R9 290X) from time to time.