AMD Radeon 8040S vs AMD Radeon 8065S Comparison

The AMD Radeon 8040S and AMD Radeon 8065S are both integrated graphics processors from the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, built on the same 4 nm TSMC process and RDNA 3.5 architecture. Despite sharing the same 308 mm² die size and a 55 W TDP, the two parts are separated by a wide performance gulf. The 8065S delivers significantly higher raw compute throughput, while the 8040S currently has the only recorded benchmark results in the database. The measurements show a clear tier split: the 8040S sits in the lower percentile range, while the 8065S is positioned in the middle of the overall GPU distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload types. The AMD Radeon 8040S has recorded scores across DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. Its strongest result is in DirectX 9 with a score of 134, followed by DirectX 11 at 80, DirectX 10 at 48, and DirectX 12 at 47. The G2D score of 1052 indicates modest 2D acceleration capability, while the G3D score of 10578 and the GPU compute score of 5138 reflect its overall 3D and compute performance envelope.

The AMD Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals. This means the 8065S cannot be directly compared on the same test suite at this time. However, the architectural specifications provided in the database allow for a theoretical assessment. The 8065S doubles the shading units to 2560, increases texture mapping units to 160, and doubles the render output units to 64. It also carries 40 ray tracing cores versus 16 on the 8040S.

For legacy DirectX 9 workloads, the 8040S is the only part with measured data, so it wins by default in that category. For modern DirectX 12 and compute-heavy tasks, the 8065S specification sheet indicates it should dominate, but no empirical scores exist to confirm this. The 8040S wins in the "has data" category, while the 8065S wins in the "theoretical maximum" category.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the RDNA 3.5 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process node. The die size is identical at 308 mm² for both chips. The 8040S is based on the Strix Halo chip, while the 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip. Both are integrated graphics processors with a slot width of IGP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

The core configuration is where the two diverge sharply. The 8040S has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The 8065S has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 40 ray tracing cores. This represents a 2.5x increase in shading units, a 2.5x increase in texture mapping units, a 2x increase in render output units, and a 2.5x increase in ray tracing cores.

Clock speeds also differ. Both parts share a base clock of 1295 MHz, but the boost clock rises to 2800 MHz on the 8040S and 3000 MHz on the 8065S. The higher boost clock on the 8065S compounds the core count advantage. The pixel rate on the 8040S is 89.60 GPixel/s, while the 8065S reaches 192.0 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 179.2 GTexel/s on the 8040S and 480.0 GTexel/s on the 8065S.

Compute throughput shows the largest gap. The 8040S delivers 5.734 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 with the same 1:1 ratio. That is roughly 2.7x the floating-point performance. Memory is system shared for both, with system dependent bandwidth, so no dedicated VRAM figures apply.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates differ: the 8040S was released on January 5, 2025, while the 8065S has a release date of December 31, 2025. Both have Polaris Mobile as their predecessor, and neither has a successor listed. Both are marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward choice for users who rely on current benchmark measurements. The AMD Radeon 8040S has an average benchmark score of 2440, placing it at the 17th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 710M with an average score of 2433 and a 0.3% delta, the Intel HD Graphics 610 with 2425 and a 0.6% delta, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M with 2422 and a 0.7% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 7400 with 2467 and a -1.1% delta. This places the 8040S in a tightly packed group of low-end parts, slightly ahead of the 710M and 610 but slightly behind the RX 7400.

The AMD Radeon 8065S has no measured results, so any verdict must rest solely on its specification sheet. The 8065S is positioned at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, which is a substantial jump from the 8040S's 17th percentile. The doubling and near-tripling of core resources, combined with a higher boost clock, gives the 8065S a theoretical compute advantage that the 8040S cannot match. For users who need maximum throughput in modern workloads, the 8065S is the clear choice based on the data available. For users who need verified performance today, the 8040S is the only part with recorded scores.

The 55 W TDP on both parts means power consumption is not a differentiator. Both are integrated parts with no external power connectors. The system shared memory configuration applies to both, so memory capacity and bandwidth depend entirely on the host system. The choice between these two GPUs is therefore a choice between confirmed low-end performance and unconfirmed high-end specifications.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 8040S?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S has an average benchmark score of 2440, based on its recorded PassMark results.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8065S have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the AMD Radeon 8065S has no benchmark entries in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

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

A: The 8040S has 1024 shading units, while the 8065S has 2560 shading units, which is a 2.5x increase.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two parts?

A: The 8040S has a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the 8065S has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, a 200 MHz advantage for the 8065S.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 5.734 TFLOPS on the 8040S.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The 8040S is at the 17th percentile of all GPUs, while the 8065S is at the 50th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two GPUs, so the comparison relies on the recorded scores of the 8040S and the specification data of the 8065S. The 8040S shows its strongest performance in DirectX 9 with a score of 134, which is more than double its DirectX 12 score of 47. The DirectX 11 score of 80 and the DirectX 10 score of 48 fall between those extremes. The G3D score of 10578 is the highest overall, while the GPU compute score of 5138 indicates roughly half the 3D performance in compute tasks.

The 8065S has no scores to compare directly, but its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is over double the 89.60 GPixel/s of the 8040S. The texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s is more than 2.5x the 179.2 GTexel/s of the 8040S. The FP32 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is approximately 2.7x the 5.734 TFLOPS of the 8040S. These specification gaps suggest that if the 8065S were benchmarked, its scores would likely be substantially higher across all modern tests.

The 8040S's nearest rival data provides context for its measured performance. It sits 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, 0.6% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610, and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 7400 by 1.1%. These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating that the 8040S performs at a similar level to those older and lower-end parts. The 8065S has no rival data, so its competitive position cannot be quantified beyond its 50th percentile ranking.

The database records the 8040S's DirectX 12 score at 47, which is its lowest DirectX result. The DirectX 9 score of 134 is its highest. This pattern suggests the 8040S handles legacy APIs better than modern ones, likely due to its relatively low shading unit count. The 8065S, with 2560 shading units and 40 ray tracing cores, is architecturally positioned for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads. The 8040S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but its 16 ray tracing cores are far fewer. The G2D score of 1052 on the 8040S is modest, and the 8065S does not have a recorded G2D score. Both parts share system dependent memory bandwidth, so actual memory performance will vary by host platform.