AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon 8065S Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison. The AMD Radeon 780M is a fully measured part with three benchmark results and a percentile rank of 61 among all GPUs. The AMD Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50. With no head-to-head benchmark results and zero wins for either side, the database cannot establish a performance hierarchy from direct measurements. The 780M shows its position through measured scores, while the 8065S only offers architectural projections.

For users selecting between these two, the data supports only one clear conclusion: the 780M is the verified option with measurable results, while the 8065S remains an unverified part whose performance characteristics are entirely speculative within this database. The 780M sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, placing it above the median. The 8065S, despite carrying a larger die and newer architecture, has no evidence of actual performance in the recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

Since the head-to-head benchmark array is empty and neither part records a win, the win analysis must rely on architectural specifications rather than measured outcomes.

The 780M wins in verified availability. Three benchmark results exist for it: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18602, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33683. Its average benchmark score is 17588. These numbers place it within a tight competitive cluster, as its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 with an average score of 17551 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17509 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17639 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 (0.4% ahead). This cluster shows the 780M operating within 0.5% of four different GPUs, a remarkably narrow performance band.

The 8065S wins in raw architectural headroom. Its shading unit count of 2560 is more than triple the 780M's 768. Its texture mapping units number 160 versus 48, and its render output units stand at 64 versus 32. The pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s doubles the 780M's 92.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s more than triples the 780M's 139.2 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute of 15.36 TFLOPS exceeds the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS by a significant margin. These are theoretical maxima, not measured results, and the database contains no evidence that the 8065S reaches these figures in practice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of AMD integrated graphics. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, belonging to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. Both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, so node technology does not differentiate them.

The die sizes differ substantially. The 780M measures 178 mm² with 25,390 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The 8065S measures 308 mm², which is larger by 130 mm², but its transistor count is listed as unknown and its transistor density is not recorded. The die size difference suggests the 8065S carries considerably more hardware, and the shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts confirm this.

Clock behavior differs. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The 8065S starts 495 MHz higher at base and boosts 100 MHz higher. The 8065S also carries more ray tracing cores: 40 versus 12 for the 780M. Neither part has tensor cores listed.

Power draw differs significantly. The 780M carries a TDP of 15 W, while the 8065S carries a TDP of 55 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors and motherboard or portable device dependent display outputs. The bus interface also differs: the 780M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling both the lane count and the bus generation.

The 780M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP with a successor of Navi III IGP. The 8065S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile with no successor listed. The 780M was released in January 2024, while the 8065S carries a release date of December 2025.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better measured performance?

A: Only the 780M has measured performance. Its average benchmark score is 17588, with individual scores of 480 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 18602 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 33683 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 8065S has no benchmark scores recorded, an average score of zero, and no rivals listed.

Q: Does the 8065S have more compute hardware than the 780M?

A: Yes. The 8065S uses 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The 780M uses 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The 8065S also produces 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 compute versus 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The 8065S runs higher at both points.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use a 4 nm process at TSMC. Their die sizes differ, with the 780M at 178 mm² and the 8065S at 308 mm².

Q: What power draw does each GPU have?

A: The 780M has a TDP of 15 W. The 8065S has a TDP of 55 W. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors.

Q: How does the 780M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 780M sits within 0.5% of four GPUs. It is 0.2% ahead of the Radeon Pro 560, 0.5% ahead of the Radeon Pro 460, 0.3% behind the GeForce RTX 4060, and 0.4% behind the Radeon HD 7790.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array contains no entries. The database records zero wins for each GPU in direct comparison. This absence of data means no direct performance relationship can be established between the 780M and the 8065S. The 780M's measured results can be compared to its own nearest rivals, but those rivals do not include the 8065S.

The 780M's strongest measured result is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33683, which exceeds its OpenCL score of 18602 by 15081 points. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 480 is a different workload and not directly comparable to the Geekbench figures.

The 8065S's theoretical advantages are substantial. Its FP32 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is 72.4% higher than the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s is 244.8% higher than the 780M's 139.2 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is 99.2 GPixel/s higher than the 780M's 92.80 GPixel/s. These figures suggest the 8065S should outperform the 780M in fill-rate bound and compute bound workloads, but no measurement confirms this.

The 780M's recorded performance places it in a specific competitive context. Its average score of 17588 is nearly identical to the Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 and the Radeon Pro 460 at 17509. The GeForce RTX 4060 at 17639 and Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 sit slightly ahead. The 780M's 61st percentile ranking indicates it outperforms 61% of all GPUs in the database. The 8065S's 50th percentile is a default position, not a measured outcome, given its zero average score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Architecture: The 780M uses RDNA 3.0. The 8065S uses RDNA 3.5.

Chip and generation: The 780M uses the Phoenix chip in the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip in the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation.

Die size: The 780M measures 178 mm². The 8065S measures 308 mm².

Transistors: The 780M has 25,390 million transistors with a density of 142.6 million per mm². The 8065S has an unknown transistor count and no recorded density.

Base clock: 800 MHz for the 780M, 1295 MHz for the 8065S.

Boost clock: 2900 MHz for the 780M, 3000 MHz for the 8065S.

Shading units: 768 for the 780M, 2560 for the 8065S.

Texture mapping units: 48 for the 780M, 160 for the 8065S.

Render output units: 32 for the 780M, 64 for the 8065S.

Ray tracing cores: 12 for the 780M, 40 for the 8065S.

Pixel rate: 92.80 GPixel/s for the 780M, 192.0 GPixel/s for the 8065S.

Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s for the 780M, 480.0 GTexel/s for the 8065S.

FP32 compute: 8.909 TFLOPS for the 780M, 15.36 TFLOPS for the 8065S.

FP16 compute: 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) for the 780M, 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) for the 8065S.

TDP: 15 W for the 780M, 55 W for the 8065S.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 780M, PCIe 5.0 x16 for the 8065S.

Display outputs: Motherboard dependent for the 780M, portable device dependent for the 8065S.

Release date: January 2024 for the 780M, December 2025 for the 8065S.

Predecessor: Navi II IGP for the 780M, Polaris Mobile for the 8065S.

Successor: Navi III IGP for the 780M, none listed for the 8065S.

Benchmark scores: Three recorded scores for the 780M, none for the 8065S.

Average benchmark score: 17588 for the 780M, 0 for the 8065S.

Percentile: 61 for the 780M, 50 for the 8065S.

Nearest rivals: Four listed for the 780M, none for the 8065S.

The shared specifications include the 4 nm TSMC process, system shared memory, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, IGP slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no launch MSRP. Both parts are active in production status and neither includes tensor cores. The database's silence on the 8065S's measured behavior leaves its architectural advantages unverified, while the 780M stands as the only part with demonstrated results.