AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon RX 6450M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the architectural difference between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon RX 6450M?

A: The Radeon 8065S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon RX 6450M uses RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process. The 8065S is built on the Gorgon Halo chip with a 308 mm² die size, whereas the RX 6450M uses the Navi 24 chip with a 107 mm² die size.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between these two mobile GPUs?

A: The Radeon 8065S relies on system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the Radeon RX 6450M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the RX 6450M uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 8065S has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, compared to the Radeon RX 6450M's boost clock of 2460 MHz. The RX 6450M also lists a game clock of 2220 MHz, while the 8065S does not have a game clock listed.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rate differences?

A: The Radeon 8065S delivers a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s. The Radeon RX 6450M delivers 78.72 GPixel/s and 118.1 GTexel/s respectively. The 8065S is over 2.4 times faster in pixel throughput and over 4 times faster in texture throughput.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The Radeon 8065S achieves 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon RX 6450M reaches 3.779 TFLOPS. The 8065S delivers roughly 4.1 times the single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: Are there differences in ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the Radeon 8065S has 40 ray tracing cores, whereas the Radeon RX 6450M has 12 ray tracing cores. The 8065S also has 2560 shading units and 160 texture mapping units, compared to 768 shading units and 48 TMUs on the RX 6450M.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation and uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the Radeon RX 6450M is part of the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation with RDNA 2.0. This generational gap brings substantial changes in compute organization and efficiency. The 8065S is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the RX 6450M uses a 6 nm process, which contributes to a significant difference in die size: 308 mm² for the Gorgon Halo chip versus 107 mm² for Navi 24.

The 8065S packs 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The RX 6450M contains 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The resource scaling is not uniform: the 8065S has 3.3 times the shading units, 3.3 times the TMUs, 2 times the ROPs, and 3.3 times the ray tracing cores. This suggests a design aimed at both rasterization and ray tracing workloads.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The 8065S uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory subsystem. The RX 6450M uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus, delivering a fixed 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8065S also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6450M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, giving the 8065S a wider path for system memory access.

The FP16 compute ratio also differs. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the RX 6450M delivers 7.557 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. This indicates the 8065S treats FP16 and FP32 with equal throughput, whereas the RX 6450M doubles FP16 rate relative to FP32.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are integrated-class parts with IGP slot width and no power connectors, and both are designated as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs. Both have an average benchmark score of zero and no nearest rivals listed. However, the specification-level comparisons provide clear performance deltas based on measured output rates.

The Radeon 8065S leads in pixel throughput by a wide margin. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is approximately 2.44 times the RX 6450M's 78.72 GPixel/s. In texture throughput, the 8065S produces 480.0 GTexel/s versus 118.1 GTexel/s, a factor of about 4.06. These rates directly reflect the ROP and TMU counts: the 8065S has twice the ROPs and 3.3 times the TMUs.

FP32 compute shows the largest gap. The 8065S reaches 15.36 TFLOPS, which is 4.06 times the RX 6450M's 3.779 TFLOPS. This scaling matches the shading unit ratio exactly, confirming that the 8065S maintains the same per-shader efficiency despite the architectural generation difference. The FP16 comparison is closer but still favors the 8065S: 15.36 TFLOPS versus 7.557 TFLOPS, a 2.03 times advantage.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The RX 6450M has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1295 MHz for the 8065S, but the 8065S has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 2460 MHz. The RX 6450M's game clock is 2220 MHz, which sits between its base and boost figures. The 8065S's higher boost clock, combined with its larger shader array, explains the massive compute advantage.

Memory bandwidth cannot be directly compared because the 8065S depends on system memory, while the RX 6450M has a fixed 128.0 GB/s. The 8065S's PCIe 5.0 x16 connection provides a potential bandwidth path that scales with the host memory controller, but the database records this as system dependent.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node differs: 4 nm for the 8065S versus 6 nm for the RX 6450M. Die size is 308 mm² versus 107 mm². The RX 6450M lists a transistor count of 5,400 million and a transistor density of 50.5M per mm², while the 8065S has no transistor count or density listed.

Clock specifications differ in both base and boost. The 8065S runs at 1295 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost. The RX 6450M runs at 2000 MHz base, 2460 MHz boost, and has a game clock of 2220 MHz. The 8065S has no game clock listed.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The 8065S uses system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 6450M uses 4 GB GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8065S memory clock is listed as system shared, while the RX 6450M has a memory clock of 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ substantially. The 8065S has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The RX 6450M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU lists tensor cores.

Output rates reflect the resource differences. The 8065S delivers 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 480.0 GTexel/s texture rate. The RX 6450M delivers 78.72 GPixel/s and 118.1 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 15.36 TFLOPS for the 8065S and 3.779 TFLOPS for the RX 6450M. FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio for the 8065S, while the RX 6450M manages 7.557 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

The TDP differs slightly: 55 W for the 8065S versus 50 W for the RX 6450M. Both use PCIe interfaces but at different versions and widths: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the 8065S and PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6450M. The bus interface difference is significant for system memory access patterns.

Both GPUs share the same API support, slot width (IGP), power connector requirement (none), display outputs (portable device dependent), and production status (active). The release dates differ: the 8065S has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the RX 6450M has a release date of 2023-01-03. Both list Polaris Mobile as their predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 8065S wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 4.06 times the RX 6450M's 3.779 TFLOPS, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, scientific calculations, or any task that scales with shading unit count. The 8065S also dominates texture-heavy workloads with 480.0 GTexel/s, a 4.06 times advantage over the RX 6450M, which benefits games and applications that rely heavily on texture sampling.

The 8065S has a 2.44 times pixel rate advantage, delivering 192.0 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s. This gives it an edge in high-resolution rendering and fill-rate-limited scenarios. The 40 ray tracing cores versus 12 provide a 3.3 times advantage in ray tracing workloads, making the 8065S the stronger option for titles that use RT effects.

The RX 6450M wins in memory determinism. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance regardless of the host system's memory configuration. The 8065S's system-shared memory means its effective bandwidth depends entirely on the laptop's memory subsystem, which could vary widely between implementations.

The RX 6450M also wins on base clock efficiency. A 2000 MHz base clock versus 1295 MHz suggests the RX 6450M maintains higher performance at lower sustained loads. The RX 6450M's smaller die size of 107 mm² versus 308 mm² indicates a more compact implementation, which could matter in space-constrained designs.

The RX 6450M has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 55 W for the 8065S, though the difference is modest. The RX 6450M's PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is simpler and sufficient for its fixed memory pool, while the 8065S requires PCIe 5.0 x16 to access system memory effectively.

The 8065S is positioned for high-performance mobile workloads where system memory bandwidth is sufficient and maximum compute throughput is required. The RX 6450M suits scenarios where dedicated memory and predictable bandwidth are priorities, and where the host system's memory configuration cannot be relied upon. The 8065S's 4.06 times FP32 advantage and 4.06 times texture rate advantage make it the dominant performer in most GPU-bound tasks, while the RX 6450M offers a more self-contained memory solution.