AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 8065S shows no benchmark entries, while the AMD Radeon 860M has two completed tests. This means every direct comparison in this section relies on the 860M's measured results and the 8065S's theoretical specifications.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 860M scores 22,759 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 30,043 points. The 860M's average benchmark score across these two tests is 26,401 points. The Radeon 8065S has no measured scores in the database, so its performance cannot be directly quantified against the 860M's results.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the 860M, the data shows a tight cluster. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 averages 26,421 points, which is 0.1% below the 860M's average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331 points, putting it 0.3% ahead of the 860M. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary averages 26,553 points, 0.6% below the 860M. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 averages 26,683 points, which is 1.1% below the 860M. In essence, the 860M sits in a performance band where the closest competitors are within a single percentage point in either direction.

The Radeon 8065S, by contrast, offers a much larger compute configuration on paper. Its 2,560 shading units versus 512, 160 texture mapping units versus 32, and 64 render output units versus 16 indicate a substantially wider execution pipeline. The FP32 throughput stands at 15.36 TFLOPS for the 8065S, compared to 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M. The pixel rate for the 8065S is 192.0 GPixel/s, while the 860M manages 48.00 GPixel/s. The texture rate for the 8065S is 480.0 GTexel/s, against 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M.

These are fivefold to fivefold-and-a-half differences in raw throughput metrics. For example, the 8065S delivers exactly 5.0 times the FP32 compute of the 860M. The texture rate is also exactly 5.0 times higher. The pixel rate is exactly 4.0 times higher. The shading unit count is exactly 5.0 times higher. The ray tracing core count is exactly 5.0 times higher as well, with 40 RT cores on the 8065S versus 8 on the 860M.

Because the 8065S has no benchmark records, the database cannot confirm whether those theoretical advantages translate into real application gains. The architecture and specification differences are clear, but the absence of measured scores leaves the actual performance delta unquantified.

The Verdict

The data supports different conclusions depending on which GPU is being considered. For the AMD Radeon 860M, the benchmark results are concrete. Its average score of 26,401 points places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The nearest rivals confirm that it performs within a narrow band of established discrete mobile GPUs. It trails the RTX 5060 by only 0.3%, essentially a statistical tie. It beats the MX550 by 0.1%, the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary by 0.6%, and the RTX A4000 by 1.1%.

For the AMD Radeon 8065S, the verdict must rest on specifications, not measurements. The database has no benchmark scores for it, and its percentile ranking sits at 50, with an average benchmark score of 0. That percentile is the neutral midpoint, not an indication of measured performance. The 8065S carries a much larger compute configuration, but without recorded results, the data cannot confirm how that hardware behaves in real workloads.

Who should pick which, strictly from the data? A user who needs verified performance numbers from the database should look at the 860M, since it has actual measured scores. A user who prioritizes the largest possible execution resources on paper, and is willing to accept an unverified performance profile, would consider the 8065S. The 8065S does have a higher TDP of 55 W versus 15 W, so the additional compute resources come with a higher power envelope.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the RDNA 3.5 architecture and are manufactured on the same 4 nm process at TSMC. The underlying instruction set and feature support match. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The chip designs differ completely. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip, while the 860M uses Krackan Point. The 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, whereas the 860M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The predecessors also differ: the 8065S follows Polaris Mobile, and the 860M follows Navi II IGP.

The die size is a major differentiator. The 8065S has a die size of 308 mm². The 860M's die size is listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. Transistor counts are unknown for both parts.

The compute architecture scales by a factor of five across several key units. The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. That is exactly 5.0 times the shading units, 5.0 times the TMUs, 4.0 times the ROPs, and 5.0 times the RT cores.

The FP32 and FP16 throughput figures are identical within each GPU, indicating a 1:1 ratio for both. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS in both.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ significantly at the base level. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz, while the 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz. Both share the same boost clock of 3000 MHz. Neither GPU has a listed game clock. Both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no memory size, type, or bus width differences exist in the data.

The power envelopes are notably different. The 8065S has a TDP of 55 W, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W. Both are integrated graphics products with no power connectors and no slot width beyond IGP.

The bus interfaces differ. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The 8065S's interface offers a newer generation and double the lane count, which matters for system shared memory access patterns.

The release dates differ. The 8065S has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the 860M has a release date of 2025-02-28. The 860M shipped roughly ten months earlier. Both are currently listed as Active in production status.

The 8065S has no launch MSRP in the database, and the 860M also has no launch MSRP. Neither GPU has listed dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401 points across its two recorded tests. The AMD Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average is listed as 0.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550?

A: The 860M's average score of 26,401 points is 0.1% higher than the MX550's average of 26,421 points.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is exactly 5.0 times the 3.072 TFLOPS delivered by the 860M.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use RDNA 3.5 and are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 8065S has a TDP of 55 W, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Do the GPUs use different PCIe interfaces?

A: Yes. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in the category of verified performance. The database contains two measured benchmark results for it, and its 72nd percentile ranking reflects actual test data. Its average score of 26,401 points positions it competitively against the MX550, RTX 5060, RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and RTX A4000, all within a 1.1% spread. For anyone relying on recorded measurements, the 860M has the only usable evidence.

The 860M also wins on power efficiency per the data. At 15 W TDP, it consumes far less power than the 8065S's 55 W while still delivering a competitive measured performance profile against discrete mobile GPUs. The lower TDP makes it suitable for thinner, lighter systems, though the database does not specify which devices use it.

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins on raw computational resources as listed in the specifications. Its 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores all represent exact 5.0x or 4.0x multiples of the 860M's corresponding units. The FP32 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is exactly 5.0 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s is exactly 5.0 times the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is exactly 4.0 times the 860M's 48.00 GPixel/s.

The 8065S also wins on interface specification. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface is a newer generation and wider than the 860M's PCIe 4.0 x8. The base clock is higher as well, at 1295 MHz versus 600 MHz, though both boost to 3000 MHz.

The 8065S has a larger die at 308 mm², while the 860M's die size is unknown. The 8065S's production status is Active, as is the 860M's. Both are integrated graphics with system shared memory and no power connectors.

For use cases, the data suggests the 860M is the choice when measured performance and low power consumption are the priorities. The 8065S is the choice when maximum theoretical compute resources and a newer, wider bus interface matter more, with the caveat that no benchmark results exist to confirm its real-world behavior. The 8065S's higher TDP of 55 W indicates it is meant for larger systems, while the 860M's 15 W TDP points toward more power-constrained platforms. The release dates also separate them, with the 860M available earlier in 2025 and the 8065S arriving later that same year.