AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process. The 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, whereas the W7800 is from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Radeon 8065S uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and bus width. The Radeon PRO W7800 has 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 8065S sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating a mid-range standing. The Radeon PRO W7800 ranks at the 97th percentile, placing it near the top of the performance distribution.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the Radeon PRO W7800?

A: The W7800 scores 154,366 points in Geekbench OpenCL and 175,422 points in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average benchmark score of 164,894. The Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: What are the physical power and cooling requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon 8065S has a 55 W TDP, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, and requires no suggested PSU. The Radeon PRO W7800 has a 260 W TDP, is a dual-slot card with two 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The Radeon PRO W7800 contains 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die with a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The Radeon 8065S has an unknown transistor count but a smaller die size of 308 mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural branches within AMD's lineup. The Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5, the newest architecture generation, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. Its chip is codenamed Gorgon Halo and it belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) series, indicating a focus on integrated, portable graphics. The Radeon PRO W7800, in contrast, uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process, with the Navi 31 chip codenamed Plum Bonito, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) workstation line.

The compute resource allocation differs substantially. The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 raster operations units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The W7800 more than doubles several of these: 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 RT cores. This larger configuration explains the W7800's much higher raw throughput figures. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, indicating its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate, a characteristic suited to compute-heavy workloads.

Clock behavior also highlights their different design targets. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, with memory clocks tied to the system. The W7800 has a higher base clock of 1895 MHz but a lower boost clock of 2525 MHz, with its memory running at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The pixel and texture rates reflect these differences: the 8065S achieves 192.0 GPixel/s and 480.0 GTexel/s, while the W7800 reaches 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 8065S relies on system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The W7800 uses 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the W7800 predictable, high-bandwidth memory access, whereas the 8065S's memory performance varies by platform.

Physical and power characteristics set them apart clearly. The 8065S is an integrated GPU with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The W7800 is a dual-slot, 260 W card requiring two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU, measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The 8065S's display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the W7800 offers three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 output.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7800 was released on April 12, 2023, with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the 8065S has a release date of December 31, 2025, and no launch MSRP. The 8065S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the W7800's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. The Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Radeon PRO W7800 has two recorded Geekbench results. This absence of overlapping data means a direct numerical comparison cannot be established from the recorded measurements.

The Radeon PRO W7800's average benchmark score of 164,894, however, places it in context. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 with an average score of 165,217 and a delta of -0.2%, meaning the W7800 trails that card by 0.2%. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094, a 0.7% advantage over the W7800. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 162,504, which is 1.5% behind the W7800. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X scores 168,574, putting it 2.2% ahead of the W7800.

The Radeon 8065S, with a 50th percentile ranking, sits in the middle of the overall distribution. The W7800's 97th percentile ranking places it among the top performers. The gap between the 50th and 97th percentiles is substantial, though without direct benchmark scores for the 8065S, the exact performance delta cannot be quantified from the data.

The W7800's individual benchmark results show a notable difference between API tests. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 175,422 is higher than its Geekbench OpenCL score of 154,366, a difference of 21,056 points. This suggests the W7800 has stronger Vulkan performance relative to OpenCL in the recorded tests. The 8065S has no comparable data points.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy, but with an important caveat: the Radeon 8065S has no benchmark scores in the database, so its position rests entirely on its 50th percentile ranking. The Radeon PRO W7800, by contrast, has concrete scores and a 97th percentile standing. Users requiring validated, high-end compute performance should consider the W7800, which demonstrates strong results in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests and holds its own against top-tier rivals like the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation.

The 8065S, as an integrated GPU with a 55 W TDP and system-shared memory, targets a different use case: portable, low-power systems. Its 4 nm process and RDNA 3.5 architecture represent newer technology, but its smaller resource pool, 2,560 shading units versus 4,480, and its lower FP32 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS, indicate it is not designed to compete with the W7800 in raw workstation performance.

The W7800's 97th percentile ranking, 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for memory-intensive professional workloads. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 throughput suggest strong compute capability for applications that leverage half-precision operations. The 8065S's 1:1 FP16 ratio at 15.36 TFLOPS means no such advantage exists for that part.

For users with a 600 W PSU budget and a dual-slot PCIe slot, the W7800 delivers top-tier performance. For users needing an integrated solution with no discrete power connectors and a 55 W TDP, the 8065S fits that niche. The choice depends entirely on the system form factor and performance requirements, as the data shows no overlap in their design targets.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 8065S | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | 308 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistors | Unknown | 57,700 million |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1295 MHz | 1895 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2525 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 4480 |

| TMUs | 160 | 280 |

| ROPs | 64 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 40 | 70 |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 323.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 480.0 GTexel/s | 707.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 15.36 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 260 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 280 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2023-04-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 2,499 USD |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Vega |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 45.25 TFLOPS is roughly three times that of the 8065S's 15.36 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 90.50 TFLOPS is nearly six times higher. The W7800 also leads in pixel rate, 323.2 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate, 707.0 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s. These figures indicate the W7800 is the choice for rendering, simulation, and compute-heavy professional applications.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the W7800 decisively. Its 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, high-speed data access. The 8065S's system-shared memory has no fixed bandwidth or capacity, making its performance dependent on the host platform. For workloads that require large datasets or sustained memory throughput, the W7800's dedicated memory is a clear advantage.

The W7800's 97th percentile ranking versus the 8065S's 50th percentile ranking reinforces this pattern. The W7800 also has recorded benchmark scores, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 175,422 and an OpenCL score of 154,366, while the 8065S has none. The W7800's nearest rivals, the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, sit within 0.7% of its average score, confirming its position among top-tier workstation GPUs.

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins in power efficiency and system integration. Its 55 W TDP is dramatically lower than the W7800's 260 W. It requires no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and takes up no expansion slot as an IGP. It uses a newer 4 nm process and a smaller 308 mm² die, which contributes to its low power profile. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface is newer than the W7800's PCIe 4.0 x16, though the practical impact depends on the host system.

The 8065S also has a higher boost clock, 3000 MHz versus 2525 MHz, and a newer architecture generation in RDNA 3.5. For portable devices where power draw and physical footprint are primary constraints, the 8065S is the only viable option between these two. The W7800, with its 280 mm length and dual-slot design, cannot fit in such systems.

In terms of API support, both GPUs match on DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so neither wins there. The W7800 offers fixed display outputs, while the 8065S's outputs depend on the portable device. The W7800's release date of 2023 gives it a longer track record, while the 8065S's 2025 release suggests newer availability. The data shows two GPUs with no benchmark overlap; each wins in its respective domain of high-performance workstation graphics versus integrated mobile graphics.