AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two AMD accelerators with fundamentally different design targets. The AMD Radeon 8065S, built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, is a mobile integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 55 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300, built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture, is a 600 W data center compute accelerator with 128 GB of HBM3 memory. The data shows these are not competing products; they serve entirely separate use cases. The 8065S is for systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics are required, while the MI300 is for high-throughput compute workloads where massive memory bandwidth and FP16 performance are critical. Based on the recorded specifications, the MI300 delivers 3.1x the FP32 throughput and 24.9x the FP16 throughput of the 8065S, but it requires 10.9x the power and uses a discrete 2x 8-pin power connector setup. The 8065S, by contrast, uses no power connectors at all and has its memory as system shared, making it suitable only for laptops or compact devices. The verdict from the data is straightforward: choose the 8065S for mobile, power-constrained systems, and the MI300 for rack-mounted compute nodes. There is no scenario in the recorded data where these two overlap in intended deployment.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The 8065S operates at a 76.5% higher boost frequency.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S uses system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has a dedicated 128 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has 14,080 shading units, compared to 2,560 shading units on the AMD Radeon 8065S. This is a 5.5x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry. The 8065S uses a newer, smaller process node.

Q: Do both GPUs support PCIe 5.0?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Q: What is the physical size of the MI300?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 measures 267 mm in length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The 8065S is an integrated graphics processor with no recorded dimensions, as it is designed to be part of a mobile system.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use entirely different architectures from AMD. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5, a graphics-focused architecture, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-optimized architecture. The 8065S is part of the Navi Mobile generation (RX 8000M) and uses the Gorgon Halo chip. The MI300 is part of the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation and uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The 8065S has an unknown transistor count but uses a much smaller 308 mm² die. The process nodes differ as well: the 8065S uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while the MI300 uses TSMC's 5 nm process.

The architectural differences extend to the memory subsystem. The 8065S relies entirely on system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system. The MI300 includes a dedicated 128 GB HBM3 memory pool with an 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The MI300 has no display outputs, while the 8065S's display outputs are portable device dependent.

The MI300 has no ROPs (0 MPixel/s pixel rate) and no ray tracing cores, reflecting its compute-only design. The 8065S has 64 ROPs with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and 40 ray tracing cores. The MI300 does have 880 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 160 on the 8065S, giving it a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s compared to 480.0 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several key specification gaps between the two AMD products.

Clock speeds: The 8065S runs at a 1295 MHz base clock and 3000 MHz boost clock. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost.

Compute units: The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs.

Ray tracing: The 8065S includes 40 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has none.

Memory: The 8065S uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 6.55 TB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1600 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective).

Throughput: The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 (8:1 ratio).

Power: The 8065S has a 55 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

Physical: The 8065S is an IGP with no recorded dimensions or slot width. The MI300 is a discrete card measuring 267 mm by 111 mm.

API support: The 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300 has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Release dates: The 8065S was released on 2025-12-31, while the MI300 was released on 2023-01-03.

Production status: The 8065S is listed as Active. The MI300's production status is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, and the average benchmark score for both is 0. However, the recorded specifications allow for a quantitative comparison of theoretical peak performance.

The largest win for the MI300 is in FP16 throughput. The MI300 delivers 383.0 TFLOPS of FP16 compute, which is 24.9x the 15.36 TFLOPS delivered by the 8065S. This is an 8:1 FP16 ratio for the MI300, meaning it trades FP32 throughput for significantly higher FP16 performance, a common design choice for AI and machine learning workloads. The 8065S uses a 1:1 FP16 ratio, which maintains its FP32 throughput but caps its FP16 performance at the same level.

In FP32 throughput, the MI300 also leads substantially. The MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS, which is 3.1x the 15.36 TFLOPS of the 8065S. This difference is driven by the MI300's 14,080 shading units versus 2,560 on the 8065S, despite the MI300's lower boost clock of 1700 MHz versus 3000 MHz.

The MI300's advantage extends to texture processing. Its 880 TMUs produce 1,496.0 GTexel/s, which is 3.1x the 480.0 GTexel/s of the 8065S. The 8065S, however, has a significant advantage in pixel processing. The 8065S delivers 192.0 GPixel/s from its 64 ROPs, while the MI300 has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The 8065S also has 40 ray tracing cores, which the MI300 lacks entirely.

Memory bandwidth is another area of major divergence. The MI300's 6.55 TB/s of HBM3 bandwidth is not directly comparable to the 8065S's system dependent shared memory, but the recorded data indicates the MI300 has a dedicated high-bandwidth memory subsystem. The 8065S's bandwidth depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Clock speeds favor the 8065S. Its 3000 MHz boost clock is 76.5% higher than the MI300's 1700 MHz boost clock. The 8065S also has a higher base clock at 1295 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Power efficiency favors the 8065S. At 55 W, the 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32, which is 0.279 TFLOPS per watt. The MI300 at 600 W delivers 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, which is 0.080 TFLOPS per watt. The 8065S is 3.5x more power efficient in FP32 throughput per watt. In FP16, the MI300 delivers 0.638 TFLOPS per watt, while the 8065S delivers 0.279 TFLOPS per watt, making the MI300 2.3x more power efficient in FP16.

The die size difference is notable. The MI300 uses a 1017 mm² die, which is 3.3x larger than the 8065S's 308 mm² die. The MI300's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² is recorded, while the 8065S's transistor count remains unknown, so a density comparison cannot be made.