AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon 8065S Comparison

AMD Radeon 740M and AMD Radeon 8065S are two distinct integrated graphics processors from AMD, built on different architectures and targeting different performance segments. The 740M is a Phoenix2-based IGP with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the 8065S is a Gorgon Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. Both are active production products, share the same 4 nm TSMC process node, and use system-shared memory. The data shows a substantial gap in raw specifications and theoretical performance between the two, though direct benchmark comparisons are limited by the absence of recorded scores for the 8065S.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The 740M has recorded scores in two tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 10172 and Geekbench Vulkan at 15568. Its average benchmark score is 12870, placing it at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs. The 8065S currently has no benchmark entries, an average score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50.

Because the 8065S lacks measured results, a direct numerical comparison cannot be established from the recorded data. However, the specification sheets reveal clear performance indicators. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is 5.36 times higher than the 740M's 2.867 TFLOPS. In pixel throughput, the 8065S reaches 192.0 GPixel/s compared to the 740M's 22.40 GPixel/s, a ratio of approximately 8.57 to 1. Texture rate shows the 8065S at 480.0 GTexel/s versus 44.80 GTexel/s for the 740M, a 10.71 times advantage.

The nearest rivals for the 740M provide context for its performance tier. The AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12847, which is 0.2% lower than the 740M. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 12831, also 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 matches closely at 12830, 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 580 sits slightly above with 12928, 0.4% higher than the 740M. These deltas indicate the 740M performs within a narrow band around these older discrete GPUs.

For the 8065S, no rival comparisons exist in the database. Its theoretical throughput numbers, however, place it in a higher performance class. The FP32 figure of 15.36 TFLOPS exceeds the 740M by more than five times, and the render output unit count of 64 versus 8 suggests vastly higher fill-rate capacity. The absence of measured benchmarks means the database cannot confirm real-world scaling, but the architectural differences are substantial.

Where Each One Wins

The 740M wins in cases where low power consumption and compact integration matter. Its TDP is 45 W, compared to 55 W for the 8065S, a difference of 10 W. The 740M's die size is 137 mm², less than half the 8065S's 308 mm². The 740M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16. For systems with limited thermal envelopes or physical space, the 740M presents a lighter integration footprint.

The 8065S wins decisively on raw compute resources. It has 2560 shading units, exactly 10 times the 740M's 256. Texture mapping units number 160 versus 16, also a 10 times difference. Render output units are 64 versus 8, an 8 times difference. Ray tracing cores number 40 for the 8065S against 4 for the 740M, again a 10 times gap. The 8065S also clocks higher: base frequency is 1295 MHz versus 800 MHz, and boost reaches 3000 MHz versus 2800 MHz.

For memory bandwidth, both GPUs rely on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The 8065S's PCIe 5.0 x16 bus provides a wider and faster connection to host memory compared to the 740M's PCIe 4.0 x8. This difference can affect performance in memory-intensive workloads, though the exact impact depends on the host platform.

The 8065S also belongs to a newer architecture generation. RDNA 3.5 succeeds RDNA 3.0, and the chip codename Gorgon Halo indicates a high-end mobile design. The 740M's Phoenix2 chip targets mainstream integrated graphics. The production status for both is active, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not permit a direct performance verdict because the 8065S lacks benchmark scores. The specification comparison, however, shows the 8065S is designed for a much higher performance tier. Its FP32 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS, pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s all exceed the 740M by factors between 5 and 11. The 8065S also has 10 times more shading units, TMUs, and RT cores, plus 8 times more ROPs.

The 740M's measured average score of 12870 places it at the 53rd percentile, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all older discrete graphics cards, and the deltas are within 0.4%, indicating the 740M sits in a well-populated performance bracket. Users seeking a baseline integrated GPU with modest compute capacity would find the 740M sufficient for light workloads.

The 8065S, despite lacking measurements, targets a different segment. Its higher TDP of 55 W and larger die of 308 mm² suggest a premium mobile part. The newer RDNA 3.5 architecture and higher clock speeds indicate the design prioritizes compute density. For applications that can utilize the additional shading units and ray tracing cores, the 8065S would likely deliver significantly higher frame rates or compute throughput, but the database cannot quantify this without benchmark entries.

The choice between the two depends on the performance requirements and platform constraints. The 740M suits systems where power draw and die area are limited. The 8065S suits systems where maximum integrated graphics performance is the priority, accepting a higher power draw. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The 740M has an average benchmark score of 12870 across its recorded tests. The 8065S has no recorded benchmarks, resulting in an average score of 0.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare between the two?

A: The 8065S has 2560 shading units, while the 740M has 256. This is a 10 times difference in favor of the 8065S.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32, while the 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS. The 8065S is approximately 5.36 times higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The 8065S has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, compared to the 740M's boost clock of 2800 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP for each GPU?

A: The 740M has a TDP of 45 W, and the 8065S has a TDP of 55 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in architecture. The 740M uses the Phoenix2 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. Both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes differ: the 740M measures 137 mm², while the 8065S measures 308 mm².

Transistor counts differ as well. The 740M contains 20,900 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 152.6M per mm². The 8065S has an unknown transistor count and no density figure in the database. The larger die size of the 8065S suggests a higher transistor budget, but the exact number is not recorded.

Clock specifications show the 8065S operates at higher frequencies. Its base clock is 1295 MHz versus 800 MHz for the 740M. Boost clocks are 3000 MHz and 2800 MHz respectively. Neither GPU has a game clock listed.

Memory configurations are similar in that both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and system-shared bus width. The bus interface differs: the 740M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The newer and wider PCIe 5.0 interface on the 8065S can provide higher bandwidth to shared system memory, depending on the host platform.

Compute unit organization scales with shading units. The 740M's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs align with a smaller GPU. The 8065S's 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs represent a much larger configuration. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 4 RT cores on the 740M versus 40 on the 8065S.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The 740M achieves 22.40 GPixel/s and 44.80 GTexel/s. The 8065S reaches 192.0 GPixel/s and 480.0 GTexel/s. FP16 performance matches FP32 at a 1:1 ratio for both GPUs, with the 8065S at 15.36 TFLOPS and the 740M at 2.867 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The 740M has a 45 W TDP, while the 8065S has a 55 W TDP. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors and motherboard or portable device dependent display outputs. The 740M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP, while the 8065S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile with no successor listed. Release dates differ: the 740M launched on 2024-01-30, and the 8065S launched on 2025-12-31.

The architectural generation gap between RDNA 3.0 and RDNA 3.5, combined with the 10 times scaling in core counts, positions the 8065S as the higher-performing part on paper. The 740M remains competitive within its own tier, as shown by its close alignment with discrete GPUs like the Radeon RX 580 and GeForce GTX 590 in average scores.