AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 8065S Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI300A and AMD Radeon 8065S occupy opposite ends of the accelerator spectrum. The MI300A is a data-center compute module built on CDNA 3.0, while the 8065S is a mobile integrated graphics processor built on RDNA 3.5. The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, as their target workloads do not overlap. The MI300A is designed for high-throughput compute with 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth. The 8065S is designed for portable graphics with 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 and a 55 W TDP. The recorded data indicates the MI300A should be selected for server-side acceleration, scientific compute, and memory-bound workloads. The 8065S should be selected for mobile devices requiring DirectX 12 Ultimate support and efficient integrated graphics. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and an OAM Module slot width, which makes it unsuitable for consumer systems. The 8065S is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, which makes it unsuitable for standalone compute tasks. The architecture split is definitive: CDNA 3.0 for compute density, RDNA 3.5 for graphics feature support.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip on a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip on a 4 nm TSMC process with a 308 mm² die; its transistor count is not recorded in the database. The MI300A implements CDNA 3.0, while the 8065S implements RDNA 3.5. The MI300A belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units, 912 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, which reflects its compute-first design where pixel output is not a priority. The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, which reflects its graphics-oriented design. The MI300A reports a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The 8065S reports a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s. The MI300A has no ray tracing cores recorded, while the 8065S includes 40 RT cores. The MI300A has no display outputs, while the 8065S has portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MI300A has no API support recorded (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A), while the 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 8065S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The MI300A memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the 8065S memory clock is system shared. The MI300A base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz. The 8065S base clock is 1295 MHz with a boost of 3000 MHz. The MI300A has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 8065S also has no power connectors but no suggested PSU is recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output is 61.29 TFLOPS, which is approximately four times the 15.36 TFLOPS of the 8065S. Its texture rate of 1,915.2 GTexel/s is four times the 480.0 GTexel/s of the 8065S. Its memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s dwarfs the system-dependent bandwidth of the 8065S. Its 128 GB of HBM3 memory provides capacity that the 8065S cannot match with system-shared memory. The MI300A also has a larger die (1017 mm² versus 308 mm²) and a higher transistor count (153,000 million versus unknown). The MI300A supports PCIe 5.0 x16, and the 8065S also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, so bus interface is not a differentiator.

The 8065S wins in graphics feature support and power efficiency. It is the only one of the two with API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 40 RT cores for ray tracing, while the MI300A has none recorded. It has 64 ROPs for pixel output, while the MI300A has 0. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is meaningful for display workloads, while the MI300A produces 0 MPixel/s. The 8065S has a 55 W TDP, which is a small fraction of the 750 W TDP of the MI300A. The 8065S has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 2100 MHz, and a higher base clock at 1295 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The 8065S uses a smaller 4 nm process versus the 5 nm process of the MI300A. The 8065S has an active production status, while the MI300A has no production status recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32. The MI300A is approximately four times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8065S support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 8065S includes 40 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The MI300A has no RT cores recorded and reports DirectX as N/A.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 8065S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power requirement?

A: The 8065S has a 55 W TDP, while the MI300A has a 750 W TDP. The MI300A also lists a suggested PSU of 1150 W, while the 8065S has no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The MI300A is built on a 5 nm TSMC process with a 1017 mm² die. The 8065S is built on a 4 nm TSMC process with a 308 mm² die.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The MI300A has no display outputs. The 8065S has portable-device-dependent display outputs, meaning its display capability depends on the host device.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, and the average benchmark score for both is 0. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, which places them at the median of the recorded database population, but this metric does not reflect their relative performance to each other given their different design goals. The recorded data instead provides specification-level comparisons that establish clear separation.

The largest win for the MI300A is in FP32 compute. The MI300A produces 61.29 TFLOPS, while the 8065S produces 15.36 TFLOPS. This is a difference of 45.93 TFLOPS, meaning the MI300A delivers roughly four times the floating-point throughput. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 480.0 GTexel/s for the 8065S. The MI300A also leads in memory bandwidth with 5.32 TB/s, while the 8065S bandwidth is system dependent, and in memory capacity with 128 GB of HBM3 versus system-shared memory. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units versus 2,560, and 912 TMUs versus 160. The MI300A transistor count is 153,000 million, while the 8065S transistor count is unknown; the die size difference is 1017 mm² versus 308 mm². The MI300A release date is recorded as 2023-12-05, while the 8065S release date is recorded as 2025-12-31, so the MI300A precedes the 8065S by about two years in release timing.

The largest win for the 8065S is in graphics feature set. The 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A reports N/A for all three APIs. The 8065S has 40 RT cores, while the MI300A has none recorded. The 8065S has 64 ROPs and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300A has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The 8065S has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 2100 MHz, and a higher base clock at 1295 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The 8065S also has a much lower TDP at 55 W versus 750 W. The 8065S FP16 output is recorded as 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1), while the MI300A FP16 output is not recorded in the database. The 8065S uses a 4 nm process, while the MI300A uses 5 nm. The 8065S is an IGP with a production status of Active, while the MI300A is an OAM Module with no production status recorded.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification. The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip, and the 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip. The MI300A architecture is CDNA 3.0, and the 8065S architecture is RDNA 3.5. The MI300A generation is Instinct (MIx), and the 8065S generation is Navi Mobile (RX 8000M). The process node is 5 nm for the MI300A and 4 nm for the 8065S, both from TSMC. The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die with a density of 150.4M per mm²; the 8065S transistor count is unknown, its die is 308 mm², and its density is not recorded. The MI300A base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz; the 8065S base clock is 1295 MHz with a boost of 3000 MHz. The MI300A memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the 8065S memory clock is system shared. Memory size is 128 GB of HBM3 for the MI300A versus system shared for the 8065S. Bus width is 8192 bit for the MI300A versus system shared for the 8065S. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s for the MI300A versus system dependent for the 8065S. Shading units are 14,592 versus 2,560. TMUs are 912 versus 160. ROPs are 0 versus 64. RT cores are not recorded for the MI300A versus 40 for the 8065S. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.29 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS. FP16 is not recorded for the MI300A versus 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) for the 8065S. TDP is 750 W versus 55 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Power connectors are none for both. The suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI300A and not recorded for the 8065S. Display outputs are none versus portable-device-dependent. The MI300A APIs are all N/A, while the 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300A predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the 8065S predecessor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a successor recorded. The MI300A release date is 2023-12-05, and the 8065S release date is 2025-12-31. The 8065S has an Active production status, while the MI300A production status is not recorded. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.