AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presented in this comparison separates the two AMD parts sharply by role and environment. The AMD Radeon 8065S is a mobile integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the newer 4 nm node with the Gorgon Halo chip and RDNA 3.5 architecture. Its performance profile is anchored by a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs and a 3000 MHz boost clock. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is a discrete, dual-slot add-in card from the Radeon RX 7000 series, using the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm process with RDNA 3.0. It holds a 17th percentile ranking and carries eight recorded benchmark scores, with an average benchmark score of 2467.

For users who need a self-contained portable device with no external power connectors and system-shared memory, the 8065S is the clear selection. Its 55 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface fit a laptop or compact IGP design. The RX 7400 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 200 W suggested PSU, and a dual-slot footprint, which places it firmly in desktop builds with dedicated power delivery. Benchmark results indicate the RX 7400 delivers compute-heavy performance in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, but its nearest rivals in the database are all low-end integrated or legacy mobile parts, including the AMD Radeon 8040S, NVIDIA GeForce 710M, Intel HD Graphics 610, and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M. That context shows the RX 7400 competes in a modest performance tier despite its discrete form.

The 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its 50th percentile placement is a positional estimate rather than a measured result. The RX 7400 has measured scores across DirectX 9 through 12, compute, and 2D tests. Users who require verified, reproducible numbers should rely on the RX 7400. Users who prioritize architectural recency, higher boost clocks, and integration will favor the 8065S. The verdict from the data: the RX 7400 is the only part with direct evidence of real-world workload performance, while the 8065S is a forward-looking mobile part whose actual scores remain unrecorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge across process node, chip design, memory topology, and feature set. The 8065S uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the RX 7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The 8065S die measures 308 mm², compared to 204 mm² for the RX 7400. The RX 7400 lists 13,300 million transistors and a transistor density of 65.2M per mm²; the 8065S transistor count is unknown. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, whereas the RX 7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0. The 8065S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, and the RX 7400 belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The 8065S boosts 700 MHz higher than the RX 7400. The 8065S memory is system shared with system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 7400 carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz, stated as 18 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The 8065S has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The 8065S leads in every unit count except equal ROPs. Pixel rate for the 8065S is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s for the RX 7400. Texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput favors the RX 7400 at 16.49 TFLOPS, while the 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 ratio. The RX 7400 achieves 32.97 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, more than double the 8065S FP16 figure. Power envelopes reverse the performance hierarchy: the 8065S has a 55 W TDP with no power connectors, while the RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 200 W suggested PSU. The 8065S uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface; the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 7400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the 8065S outputs are portable device dependent. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7400 release date is August 2025, and the 8065S release date is January 2026. The 8065S predecessor is Polaris Mobile, and the RX 7400 predecessor is Navi II with successor Navi IV.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries pairing the 8065S against the RX 7400. The 8065S has zero recorded benchmark scores, so no measured comparison exists. The RX 7400 has eight recorded scores that establish its performance envelope. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records a score of 1103. PassMark tests show a DirectX 10 score of 59, DirectX 11 score of 97, DirectX 12 score of 44, and DirectX 9 score of 176. The PassMark G2D score is 1209, G3D score is 11897, and GPU compute score is 5152.

The RX 7400 average benchmark score is 2467. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a narrow band: the AMD Radeon 8040S scores 2440 with a delta of 1.1 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433 with a delta of 1.4 percent, the Intel HD Graphics 610 scores 2425 with a delta of 1.8 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2422 with a delta of 1.9 percent. The RX 7400 leads its closest competitor by 27 points against the 8040S, 34 points against the 710M, 42 points against the HD 610, and 45 points against the GT 710M. These margins are small, between 1.1 and 1.9 percent, indicating the RX 7400 sits at the top of a tightly clustered low-performance group.

The FP32 throughput of the RX 7400 at 16.49 TFLOPS exceeds the 8065S at 15.36 TFLOPS by roughly 7 percent. The RX 7400 FP16 throughput at 32.97 TFLOPS is more than double the 8065S FP16 figure of 15.36 TFLOPS. However, the 8065S leads in pixel rate (192.0 versus 147.2 GPixel/s, a 30 percent advantage) and texture rate (480.0 versus 257.6 GTexel/s, an 86 percent advantage). The 8065S also has 40 ray tracing cores versus 28, a 43 percent higher count, and 2560 shading units versus 1792, a 43 percent higher count.

The RX 7400 boost clock of 2300 MHz is lower than the 8065S boost of 3000 MHz by 700 MHz. The RX 7400 base clock of 1452 MHz is higher than the 8065S base of 1295 MHz by 157 MHz. The RX 7400 game clock of 2200 MHz sits between its base and boost values. Without measured 8065S benchmark scores, the recorded data only permits a partial comparison: the RX 7400 wins on raw FP32 and FP16 compute, while the 8065S wins on unit counts, pixel throughput, texture throughput, ray tracing core count, and boost clock.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has a boost clock of 2300 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the RX 7400 have?

A: The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference between the two?

A: The RX 7400 delivers 32.97 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What power connector does each GPU require?

A: The 8065S has no power connectors and a 55 W TDP. The RX 7400 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, has a 43 W TDP, and a 200 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does the RX 7400 have recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes. The RX 7400 has eight recorded scores, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103, a PassMark G3D score of 11897, and a PassMark GPU compute score of 5152. Its average benchmark score is 2467.

Q: What is the nearest rival to the RX 7400 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S is the nearest rival with an average score of 2440, a delta of 1.1 percent from the RX 7400 average of 2467.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 wins in measured benchmark results. It holds eight recorded scores across multiple test suites, while the 8065S holds none. The RX 7400 delivers higher FP32 throughput at 16.49 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS, and substantially higher FP16 throughput at 32.97 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS. For compute-heavy workloads that use FP16 arithmetic, the RX 7400 is more than twice as fast on paper. The RX 7400 also has a higher base clock at 1452 MHz versus 1295 MHz, and a game clock of 2200 MHz that the 8065S lacks entirely. The RX 7400 memory subsystem is fixed at 8 GB GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, providing predictable performance independent of host system memory. The RX 7400 uses a dual-slot form factor with a 6-pin connector and a 200 W suggested PSU, which suits a dedicated desktop build with a power supply.

The 8065S wins in architectural specifications and integration. It uses a 4 nm process versus 6 nm, enabling a higher boost clock of 3000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units versus 1792, 160 TMUs versus 112, 40 RT cores versus 28, and equal ROPs at 64. Pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s, a 30 percent advantage. Texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s, an 86 percent advantage. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the available bus lanes and generations. Its 55 W TDP with no power connectors makes it suitable for portable devices where external power is unavailable. The 8065S belongs to the newer Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation and uses RDNA 3.5, while the RX 7400 uses the older RDNA 3.0.

The database shows a clear split: the RX 7400 is the only part with verified performance numbers and wins all measured benchmark comparisons. The 8065S wins every listed architectural count except FP32 and FP16 throughput, plus base clock and memory configuration. Users who need discrete graphics with a known benchmark profile choose the RX 7400. Users who need an integrated solution with no power connector, higher pixel and texture throughput, more ray tracing cores, and a higher boost clock choose the 8065S. The 8065S percentile placement at 50 indicates a mid-pack expectation, while the RX 7400 at the 17th percentile is measured near the bottom among all GPUs. The RX 7400 sits 1.1 to 1.9 percent above its nearest rivals, a narrow margin that positions it just ahead of integrated and legacy mobile parts. The 8065S has no rivals listed, so its competitive position remains undefined by direct measurement.