AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon RX 7700. The database shows no overlapping test scores for these two parts, so a direct comparison of measured performance must rely on the available specification data and the RX 7700's individual benchmark results.

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a complete set of benchmark scores in the database. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 2865 points. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 106028 points. The PassMark suite shows a G3D score of 20974, a G2D score of 1206, and a GPU compute score of 10963. The DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 PassMark scores are 261, 92, 186, and 96 respectively. Its average benchmark score is 15852, placing it at the 58th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The AMD Radeon 8065S has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it sits at the 50th percentile. This means the database contains no measured performance data for the 8065S.

The RX 7700's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. The AMD Radeon R9 370X has an average score of 15862, which is 0.1% higher than the RX 7700. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 averages 16014, 1% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 averages 15679, 1.1% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti averages 16129, 1.7% higher. These small deltas indicate the RX 7700 sits in a tightly contested performance band, with all four rivals within roughly two percentage points of its average score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5 and is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It is part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation and carries the chip name Gorgon Halo. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 uses RDNA 3.0 and is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation and uses the Navi 32 chip, with the codename Wheat Nas.

The manufacturing process differs by one node step. The 8065S uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while the RX 7700 uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The RX 7700's transistor count is listed as 28,100 million, and its die size is 346 mm², giving a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The 8065S has a die size of 308 mm², but its transistor count is unknown in the database.

Both GPUs have the same number of shading units at 2560 and the same number of texture mapping units at 160. Both also have 40 ray tracing cores. The render output unit count differs: the 8065S has 64 ROPs, while the RX 7700 has 96 ROPs. The RX 7700 has a higher pixel rate at 236.1 GPixel/s compared to 192.0 GPixel/s for the 8065S. The texture rate favors the 8065S, which delivers 480.0 GTexel/s versus 393.4 GTexel/s for the RX 7700.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The 8065S uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as system dependent. The RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700's memory clock is 2438 MHz, with 19.5 Gbps effective data rate.

Clock speeds show different strategies. The 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a game clock of 2041 MHz, and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. The 8065S has a higher maximum boost clock, but the RX 7700 has a much higher base clock.

The power figures differ substantially. The 8065S has a TDP of 55 W, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP slot width. The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, uses a dual-slot form factor, and has a suggested power supply of 550 W.

The floating point throughput also diverges. The 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The RX 7700's raw compute throughput is higher by a significant margin.

The bus interface differs as well. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs for the 8065S are listed as portable device dependent, while the RX 7700 has 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

The RX 7700 has physical dimensions of 267 mm length, 135 mm height, and 50 mm width. The 8065S has no listed dimensions because it is an integrated part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins in raw compute throughput based on the specification data. Its FP32 performance of 25.18 TFLOPS is substantially higher than the 8065S's 15.36 TFLOPS. The RX 7700 also has a higher pixel rate at 236.1 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, and more ROPs at 96 versus 64. Its 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, high-bandwidth memory subsystem, while the 8065S relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The RX 7700's benchmark presence in the database gives it a measurable performance position. Its average benchmark score of 15852 and 58th percentile ranking are concrete data points. The nearest rival comparisons show it is competitive with the R9 370X, RX 9060, Pro W5500, and RTX 3060 Ti, all within 1.7% of its average score.

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins on power efficiency and integration. Its TDP of 55 W is far lower than the RX 7700's 200 W. It requires no power connectors and occupies an IGP slot, meaning it is designed to be integrated into a portable device rather than installed as a separate card. Its boost clock of 3000 MHz is higher than the RX 7700's 2459 MHz, and its texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s exceeds the RX 7700's 393.4 GTexel/s despite the lower overall FP32 throughput.

The 8065S also uses a more recent process node at 4 nm versus 5 nm, and it supports PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Its die size is smaller at 308 mm² versus 346 mm².

The use case split is clear from the data. The RX 7700 is a discrete, dual-slot desktop graphics card with dedicated memory and higher compute throughput, suited for scenarios where maximum rendering performance and a fixed memory pool matter. The 8065S is an integrated GPU with a very low power envelope, designed for portable systems where space, power draw, and cooling capacity are constrained.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The 8065S uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The 8065S has a TDP of 55 W and uses no power connectors. The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more render output units?

A: The RX 7700 has 96 ROPs, while the 8065S has 64 ROPs.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The 8065S uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the RX 7700 uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: What are the benchmark results for the 8065S?

A: The database records no benchmark scores for the 8065S. Its average benchmark score is 0 and its percentile is 50. The RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15852 at the 58th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon 8065S | AMD Radeon RX 7700 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Chip | Gorgon Halo | Navi 32 |

| Codename | None listed | Wheat Nas |

| Transistors | Unknown | 28,100 million |

| Die size | 308 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not listed | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1295 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost clock | 3000 MHz | 2459 MHz |

| Game clock | Not listed | 2041 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 624.1 GB/s |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Pixel rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 236.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 480.0 GTexel/s | 393.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 15.36 TFLOPS | 25.18 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) | 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 200 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 135 mm x 50 mm |

| Release date | 2025-12-31 | 2025-09-17 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Navi II |

| Successor | Not listed | Navi IV |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 15852 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 58 |

The two GPUs share identical shading unit counts at 2560, TMU counts at 160, ray tracing core counts at 40, and API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are manufactured by AMD and both are listed as Active in production status.