AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the AMD Radeon 8065S and AMD Radeon 840M?

A: The Radeon 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip with 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGPs) built on TSMC's 4 nm process.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare between the two?

A: The Radeon 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 8065S operates at a higher base frequency and a slightly higher boost frequency.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon 8065S has a TDP of 55 W, while the Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W. This indicates the 8065S is designed for higher performance with greater power draw, whereas the 840M targets efficiency.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The feature set for modern gaming and compute workloads is identical on the software side.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each?

A: The Radeon 8065S delivers a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s. The Radeon 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The 8065S has significantly higher throughput in both metrics.

Q: Which PCIe interface does each use?

A: The Radeon 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The 8065S has a wider and faster bus connection.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.5 architecture and are built on TSMC's 4 nm process, but they are distinctly different silicon implementations. The Radeon 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip, which is a large die measuring 308 mm². The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip, whose die size is not recorded in the database. The 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, while the 840M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

The most striking architectural difference is the compute resource allocation. The 8065S packs 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The 840M is far leaner, with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This represents a 10:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs, and an 8:1 ratio in ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: the 8065S has 40 RT cores, while the 840M has only 4.

Clock behavior also differs. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz, which is over three times higher than the 840M's 400 MHz base. The boost clocks are closer, with the 8065S reaching 3000 MHz versus the 840M's 2900 MHz. This suggests the 840M relies more heavily on boost behavior to achieve its performance, while the 8065S maintains a higher floor.

The memory architecture is identical in concept: both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The bus interface differs, with the 8065S using PCIe 5.0 x16 and the 840M using PCIe 4.0 x8. This gives the 8065S a wider and faster path to system memory.

The power envelope is another major divergence. The 8065S is rated at 55 W TDP, while the 840M is rated at 15 W TDP. This nearly four-fold difference in power allocation explains the substantial gap in compute resources and clock speeds. Both are IGPs with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 8065S wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 15.36 TFLOPS, which is more than ten times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS (approximately 1.48 TFLOPS). This makes the 8065S suitable for demanding workloads such as high-resolution gaming, content creation, and compute-heavy applications. The 8065S also wins on pixel and texture fill rates, with 192.0 GPixel/s and 480.0 GTexel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s respectively. These advantages translate directly to better performance in rasterization-heavy scenarios and higher resolution rendering.

The Radeon 840M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the 8065S's 55 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are priorities. The 840M's lower base clock of 400 MHz allows it to idle at very low power, and its 2900 MHz boost clock ensures it can still deliver responsive performance when needed. For everyday tasks, light gaming, and media playback, the 840M provides adequate capability while consuming far less power.

The 840M also has a smaller silicon footprint, as its die size is unknown but its chip is named Krackan Point, which is a lower-tier part compared to the Gorgon Halo. This likely enables more compact system designs. The 8065S, with its 308 mm² die, requires more substantial cooling and power delivery, which limits it to larger laptops or portable workstations.

The bus interface also favors the 8065S for memory-intensive workloads. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 connection offers higher bandwidth potential compared to the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters when both rely on system-shared memory. Applications that stream large textures or datasets will benefit more from the 8065S's interface.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 8065S | AMD Radeon 840M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Gorgon Halo | Krackan Point |

| Generation | Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) |

| Die Size | 308 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1295 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 256 |

| TMUs | 160 | 16 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 40 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 480.0 GTexel/s | 46.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 15.36 TFLOPS | 1,484.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2025-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Navi II IGP |

The memory specifications are identical: both use system-shared memory type, size, and bus width, with system-dependent bandwidth. The APIs, display outputs, slot width (IGP), and power connectors are also the same.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, and neither has an average benchmark score or nearest rivals listed. However, the theoretical peak rates provide a clear quantitative comparison.

The most significant gap appears in FP32 compute. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS, while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. To put this in perspective, the 8065S is approximately 10.3 times faster in raw shader throughput. This translates to a massive advantage in any workload that scales with shader count, including modern game rendering, GPU-accelerated encoding, and compute tasks.

Pixel throughput follows a similar pattern. The 8065S achieves 192.0 GPixel/s, which is roughly 8.3 times the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s. This affects fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high-resolution rendering, alpha-blended effects, and multi-sampled anti-aliasing. Texture rate shows an even larger ratio: 480.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a factor of about 10.3. Games that rely heavily on texture sampling, such as those with complex materials or large world textures, will see substantial differences.

The clock speeds also contribute to the performance gap. The 8065S's base clock of 1295 MHz is more than three times the 840M's 400 MHz, and its boost clock of 3000 MHz edges out the 840M's 2900 MHz. Higher clocks allow the 8065S to sustain throughput even when shader occupancy is low.

The RT core count difference, 40 versus 4, indicates a ten-fold disparity in ray tracing hardware. This suggests the 8065S can handle ray-traced effects with far greater efficiency, though the database does not provide specific ray tracing benchmark numbers.

The TDP difference of 55 W versus 15 W indicates that the 8065S is not just faster per clock, but has nearly four times the power budget to maintain high clocks across all its execution units. The 840M must operate within a much tighter thermal envelope, which limits sustained performance.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon 8065S is in a different class from the AMD Radeon 840M. With 10 times the shading units, 10 times the TMUs, 8 times the ROPs, and 10 times the RT cores, the 8065S delivers over 10 times the FP32 throughput and roughly 8 to 10 times the pixel and texture fill rates. Its 55 W TDP, 308 mm² die, and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface all point to a high-performance part designed for demanding applications.

The Radeon 840M, by contrast, is a low-power IGP with a 15 W TDP. Its 256 shading units and 4 RT cores are adequate for entry-level gaming and everyday graphics tasks, but they are not in the same league as the 8065S. The 840M's lower base clock of 400 MHz and reduced bus width (PCIe 4.0 x8) further limit its peak throughput.

For users prioritizing maximum graphics performance in a mobile platform, the 8065S is the clear choice. Its 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate can handle high-resolution gaming and intensive creative workloads. The 840M suits systems where power efficiency is paramount, such as ultraportable laptops that need long battery life and low heat output.

The release dates also reflect their positioning. The 840M launched earlier, in February 2025, while the 8065S launched in December 2025. Both are active production parts with no successors listed. The 8065S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the 840M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, indicating different lineage paths within AMD's mobile GPU portfolio.

Both GPUs share the same RDNA 3.5 architecture, 4 nm process, and API support, so software compatibility is identical. The decision comes down to the performance and power trade-off. The 8065S delivers high-end performance at 55 W, while the 840M delivers efficiency at 15 W. For any workload that stresses the GPU, the 8065S is the superior part by a wide margin. For basic graphics and low-power operation, the 840M is the practical option.