AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon 8065S Comparison

AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon 8065S are both integrated graphics solutions from the same manufacturer, yet they occupy distinctly different positions in the performance spectrum. The 760M is a low-power IGP designed for thin-and-light systems, while the 8065S is a high-performance mobile part with substantially more compute resources. The recorded data shows a clear separation in capabilities, though direct benchmark comparisons are limited because the 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores in the database at this time.

The Verdict

The database contains a complete set of benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 760M, while the AMD Radeon 8065S currently has no recorded benchmark scores. This means any direct performance comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the measured results of the 760M alone. The 760M achieves an average benchmark score of 6019 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 with an average score of 6001 (a 0.3% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (also 0.3% difference), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.4% difference). The 760M sits slightly above these three, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% higher than the 760M.

For the 8065S, the absence of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance yet. Its specifications, however, indicate a substantially larger GPU: 5 times the shading units, 5 times the texture mapping units, 4 times the render output units, and 5 times the ray tracing cores compared to the 760M. The 8065S also carries a 55 W TDP versus the 760M's 15 W TDP, which aligns with its higher clock speeds and larger die size. Based on these recorded specifications, the 8065S should deliver significantly higher frame rates in graphics-intensive workloads, but the database has no measurements to verify this expectation.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 760M is built on the Phoenix chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip with the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. Both are manufactured on the 4 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes diverge considerably: the 760M measures 178 mm² with 25,390 million transistors (a density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter), while the 8065S has a 308 mm² die with its transistor count listed as unknown in the database.

The architectural generation difference from RDNA 3.0 to RDNA 3.5 brings changes in the compute structure. The 760M features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The 8065S scales these up to 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 40 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is identical.

Clock speeds show a notable gap. The 760M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz with a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The 8065S operates at a base clock of 1295 MHz and boosts to 3000 MHz. This higher clock range, combined with the larger compute unit count, produces a theoretical pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s for the 8065S, compared to 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s for the 760M. The FP32 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS for the 8065S versus 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M, with both maintaining a 1:1 ratio for FP16 workloads.

Memory configurations are identical in nature: both use System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and bandwidth that is System Dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM, so performance will depend heavily on the host system's memory subsystem.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database contains no entries, and the 8065S has no recorded scores in any individual test. Therefore, a direct numerical comparison of benchmark results is not possible from the recorded data. The 760M, however, has a full set of measurements that establish its performance profile.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the 760M scores 400 points. Geekbench OpenCL yields 20255 points, while Geekbench Vulkan produces 30336 points. Passmark tests show a wide variance across API generations: DirectX 9 scores 65, DirectX 10 scores 19, DirectX 11 scores 52, and DirectX 12 scores 25. The Passmark G2D score is 890, G3D is 5310, and GPU Compute is 2840.

These numbers indicate the 760M's strengths and weaknesses. The Vulkan score of 30336 is substantially higher than the OpenCL score of 20255, suggesting better optimization for Vulkan workloads. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 65 is the highest among the DirectX tests, while DirectX 10 at 19 is the lowest, which may reflect driver maturity or architectural preferences for older API paths.

For the 8065S, the database records a percentile rank of 50 (versus the 760M's 35), but this rank is based on an average benchmark score of 0 due to the absence of any test results. The 8065S also has no nearest rivals listed, meaning the database has not yet placed it in context with other GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several recorded specification fields. The chip designations are Phoenix for the 760M and Gorgon Halo for the 8065S. The architecture differs as RDNA 3.0 versus RDNA 3.5, and the generations are Navi III IGP (Phoenix) versus Navi Mobile (RX 8000M). The die size is 178 mm² for the 760M versus 308 mm² for the 8065S, while transistor counts are 25,390 million for the 760M and unknown for the 8065S. Transistor density is 142.6M per mm² for the 760M, with no value recorded for the 8065S.

Base clock speeds are 800 MHz versus 1295 MHz, and boost clocks are 2599 MHz versus 3000 MHz. Shading units number 512 versus 2560, TMUs are 32 versus 160, ROPs are 16 versus 64, and ray tracing cores are 8 versus 40. Pixel rates are 41.58 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, texture rates are 83.17 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS. The TDP is 15 W versus 55 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 760M and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the 8065S. Display outputs are Motherboard Dependent for the 760M and Portable Device Dependent for the 8065S. The release dates are 2024-01-30 for the 760M and 2025-12-31 for the 8065S. The predecessor for the 760M is Navi II IGP, while the 8065S lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor.

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (AMD), process node (4 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size/type/bus width (System Shared), memory bandwidth (System Dependent), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), suggested PSU (null), APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and production status (Active).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has 2560 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 760M has 512 shading units. This is a 5x difference in the recorded specifications.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the 760M?

A: The 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6400, scores 6001, which is 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% higher.

Q: Does the 8065S have any benchmark results in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the 8065S, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile rank of 50 is based on specifications rather than measured performance.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 760M has a TDP of 15 W, while the 8065S has a TDP of 55 W. The 8065S consumes more power, which corresponds with its higher clock speeds and larger compute configuration.

Q: How do their FP32 throughput figures compare?

A: The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS. Both maintain a 1:1 ratio for FP16 workloads, meaning half-precision performance matches single-precision figures.

Q: What bus interfaces do they use?

A: The 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The 8065S's interface offers a wider and newer connection to the host system.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in scenarios where power efficiency and low thermal output are priorities. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for compact systems where cooling is limited. The recorded benchmark results show moderate performance that places it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 6019. Its nearest rivals are all within a 0.5% margin, indicating that the 760M sits in a tightly contested performance class. The 760M's release date of 2024-01-30 means it has been available for a longer period, and its predecessor is Navi II IGP.

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins in raw compute specifications. Its 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs suggest it can handle significantly heavier graphical workloads than the 760M. The 3000 MHz boost clock and 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 throughput place it in a different performance tier. The 8065S also benefits from PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity, which provides higher bandwidth to the host system compared to the 760M's PCIe 4.0 x8. The 55 W TDP indicates that systems using this GPU will require more robust power delivery and cooling solutions. The 8065S's later release date of 2025-12-31 and its predecessor Polaris Mobile suggest it is a newer design within the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the 760M shows higher scores in Passmark DirectX 9 (65) compared to DirectX 11 (52) and DirectX 12 (25), which may indicate better performance in older applications. The 8065S has no recorded scores, so no comparable data exists for any API. The 760M also has a higher Passmark G2D score of 890, which could translate to better 2D desktop rendering performance, though the 8065S's specifications suggest it would likely outperform in this area as well given its larger compute resources.

The database does not provide enough data to determine where the 8065S wins in specific benchmark categories, as its benchmark array is empty. The only definitive wins for the 8065S come from the specification sheet: higher clock speeds, more compute units, higher pixel and texture rates, higher FP32 throughput, a wider bus interface, and a newer architecture generation. The 760M's wins are limited to its recorded benchmark scores and its lower power draw, which the database confirms at 15 W versus 55 W.