AMD Radeon 8065S vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the architectural generation difference between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. The 8065S is part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, whereas the 7800M belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of raw compute throughput?

A: The RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the 15.36 TFLOPS of the 8065S. The 7800M also has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, compared to 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the 8065S.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 8065S uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W, while the 8065S has a TDP of 55 W. Both are classified as IGP slot width and use no power connectors.

Q: What is the clock speed difference?

A: Both have a base clock of 1295 MHz. The 8065S boosts to 3000 MHz, while the RX 7800M boosts to 2335 MHz and has a game clock of 2145 MHz.

Q: Which GPU holds the higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The RX 7800M ranks in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 8065S ranks in the 50th percentile. The RX 7800M also has an average benchmark score of 27883, while the 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two mobile GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon 8065S is built on RDNA 3.5 using a 4 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800M is built on RDNA 3.0 using a 5 nm TSMC process. This process difference gives the 8065S a smaller die size of 308 mm² versus 346 mm² for the 7800M, though the 7800M has a known transistor count of 28,100 million and a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm², while the 8065S transistor count is listed as unknown.

The chip designs differ substantially. The 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip, while the 7800M uses Navi 32 with the codename Wheat Nas. The 8065S has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture represents a major divergence. The 8065S relies entirely on system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all system dependent, and its bandwidth scales with the host system. The RX 7800M carries dedicated 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit interface with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). This dedicated memory arrangement gives the 7800M predictable memory performance that does not depend on the host platform.

The bus interface also differs: the 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed with the Polaris Mobile predecessor, and both are marked as Active production status. The 8065S has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the 7800M was released on 2024-09-10.

Power characteristics are sharply different. The 8065S carries a 55 W TDP, which is low for an integrated-class GPU. The RX 7800M draws 180 W, indicating a much higher performance envelope. Both use the IGP slot width and require no power connectors, and both have display outputs listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. The 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores at all, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. The RX 7800M, by contrast, has a substantial set of recorded measurements.

The RX 7800M shows strong results across multiple benchmark suites. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2994. In Geekbench OpenCL, it reaches 120778, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 126668. Passmark results include 17613 in G3D, 9342 in GPU compute, 892 in G2D, 176 in DirectX 11, 174 in DirectX 9, 99 in DirectX 10, and 89 in DirectX 12. Its average benchmark score is 27883.

Without benchmark data for the 8065S, the comparison rests on architectural and specification differences. The RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.34 times the 15.36 TFLOPS of the 8065S. The 7800M also has 50% more shading units (3840 versus 2560), 50% more TMUs (240 versus 160), and 50% more ROPs (96 versus 64). Its ray tracing core count of 60 exceeds the 40 on the 8065S by 50%.

The 8065S does hold advantages in certain metrics. Its boost clock of 3000 MHz is 28.5% higher than the 2335 MHz boost of the 7800M. The texture rate tells a different story: the 8065S manages 480.0 GTexel/s, while the 7800M delivers 560.4 GTexel/s, a 16.7% advantage for the 7800M. The pixel rate also favors the 7800M at 224.2 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s for the 8065S, a 16.8% difference.

The RX 7800M sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average score of 27883. Its nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 scores 27839 (0.2% above), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27973 (0.3% below), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti scores 28020 (0.5% below), and the AMD FirePro S7150 scores 28117 (0.8% below). This cluster indicates that the RX 7800M performs at a level essentially equivalent to those desktop and workstation parts.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the RX 7800M is the stronger performer in nearly every measurable category. Its FP32 throughput of 35.87 TFLOPS more than doubles the 15.36 TFLOPS of the 8065S. It carries 50% more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus 50% more ray tracing cores. Its dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides consistent memory performance that the system shared memory of the 8065S cannot guarantee.

The 8065S offers a different trade-off. Its 55 W TDP is dramatically lower than the 180 W of the RX 7800M, making it suitable for systems with tighter power budgets. Its 3000 MHz boost clock is the highest among the two, and its 4 nm process node is more advanced than the 5 nm node of the 7800M. The 8065S also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a newer bus standard than the PCIe 4.0 x16 of the 7800M.

Users who prioritize raw graphics performance in the database should favor the RX 7800M. Its 73rd percentile ranking versus the 50th percentile of the 8065S, combined with its recorded average benchmark score of 27883, places it in a higher performance tier. The RX 7800M competes directly with GPUs like the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, as shown by the sub-1% delta values.

Users who need an integrated-class GPU with low power draw and a smaller die size should consider the 8065S. Its 308 mm² die is smaller than the 346 mm² of the 7800M, and its 55 W TDP is less than one third of the 7800M power draw. The lack of benchmark scores for the 8065S means its real-world performance cannot be quantified from the database, but its architectural and specification profile indicates a lower performance ceiling.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 8065S | AMD Radeon RX 7800M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Chip | Gorgon Halo | Navi 32 |

| Die Size | 308 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistors | Unknown | 28,100 million |

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

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2335 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not listed | 2145 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 12 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 160 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 60 |

| FP32 Performance | 15.36 TFLOPS | 35.87 TFLOPS |

| Texture Rate | 480.0 GTexel/s | 560.4 GTexel/s |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 224.2 GPixel/s |

| TDP | 55 W | 180 W |

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

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2024-09-10 |

| Percentile | 50 | 73 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 27883 |