AMD Radeon 8065S vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no benchmark wins for either GPU. The AMD Radeon 8065S and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 both have zero recorded benchmark entries, with no head-to-head benchmark results available. Consequently, the win split is even at zero apiece, meaning no workload category can be assigned to either part based on measured performance.

The absence of benchmark data does not mean both GPUs are equivalent in capability. The AMD Radeon 8065S is positioned as a mobile integrated graphics processor within the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, designed for portable devices with a 55 W TDP and an IGP slot width. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a dual-slot data center accelerator with a 300 W TDP, 48 GB of HBM2e memory, and no display outputs. These are fundamentally different product classes, and the lack of overlapping benchmarks reflects their divergent target markets.

For the AMD part, the data indicates a 50th percentile standing among all GPUs in the database. The Intel part also sits at the 50th percentile. Both have an average benchmark score of zero, confirming that no performance measurements have been recorded for either. Without scores, percentile deltas, or rival comparisons, the analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences to characterize each product.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8065S uses the Gorgon Halo chip built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 308 mm², and the transistor count is listed as unknown. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip based on Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. Its die size is 1280 mm² with 100,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 78.1 million transistors per mm².

The RDNA 3.5 architecture in the AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan support not listed. The AMD GPU includes 40 ray tracing cores, while the Intel GPU includes 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD part has no tensor core count listed, and the Intel part also has no tensor core count listed.

The AMD Radeon 8065S uses system-shared memory, meaning the memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system. The memory clock is also system-shared. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e memory on a 8192-bit bus, with 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective). The AMD part has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1550 MHz.

The AMD GPU has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Intel GPU has 7168 shading units, 448 texture mapping units, and zero render output units. This explains the pixel rate difference: the AMD part delivers 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Intel part delivers 0 MPixel/s, consistent with a data center accelerator that has no display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

With no head-to-head benchmark data recorded, the comparison must rely on computed specifications. The AMD Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 22.22 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. This represents a 44.66% advantage for the Intel part in raw floating-point throughput, derived from 22.22 divided by 15.36.

Texture rate favors the Intel part: 694.4 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s for the AMD part. This is a 44.67% higher texture throughput for Intel. The AMD part counters with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has no pixel throughput at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the absence of render output units.

Clock speeds show a different story. The AMD Radeon 8065S boosts to 3000 MHz, which is 93.55% higher than the Intel part's 1550 MHz boost clock. The base clock is also higher on the AMD part: 1295 MHz versus 1000 MHz, a 29.5% advantage. However, the Intel part compensates with 2.8 times the shading units (7168 versus 2560) and 2.8 times the texture mapping units (448 versus 160).

Memory bandwidth is decisively in favor of the Intel part. The 1.23 TB/s of HBM2e bandwidth on a 8192-bit bus is not comparable to the system-dependent memory bandwidth of the AMD part, which cannot be quantified from the recorded data. The Intel part also has a fixed 48 GB memory capacity, while the AMD part relies on system-shared memory.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 4 nm for AMD (TSMC) versus 10 nm for Intel (Intel foundry). Die size is 308 mm² for AMD versus 1280 mm² for Intel. Transistor count is unknown for AMD versus 100,000 million for Intel. Transistor density is not listed for AMD versus 78.1M per mm² for Intel.

Memory configuration is fundamentally different. The AMD part uses system-shared memory with no fixed size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. The Intel part has 48 GB of HBM2e memory, an 8192-bit bus, 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, and a 600 MHz memory clock (1200 Mbps effective). The AMD part has no dedicated memory clock listed, relying on system memory.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. AMD has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Intel has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are 40 for AMD versus 56 for Intel. The AMD part has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s; the Intel part has 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 and FP16 performance are 15.36 TFLOPS for AMD versus 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel, both at 1:1 FP16 ratios.

Power and physical specifications differ greatly. The AMD part has a 55 W TDP, an IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The Intel part has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot width, and requires a single 12-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The Intel part measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length; the AMD part has no dimensions listed. The AMD part has display outputs described as portable device dependent; the Intel part has no outputs.

The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. API support differs: AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) with Vulkan not listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Production status is active for both. The AMD part was released on 2025-12-31, while the Intel part was released on 2023-01-09. The Intel part has a listed successor (H3C Graphics); the AMD part has no successor. The AMD part lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor; the Intel part has no predecessor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 44.66% higher than the AMD Radeon 8065S at 15.36 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1550 MHz. The AMD part's boost clock is 93.55% higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 7168 shading units, which is 2.8 times the 2560 shading units on the AMD Radeon 8065S.

Q: Can the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 output video to displays?

A: No, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, consistent with its data center accelerator role. The AMD Radeon 8065S has display outputs described as portable device dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a 55 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP slot width. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot width, requires a single 12-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 700 W.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the stronger compute performer for data center workloads. It leads in FP32 performance (22.22 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS), texture rate (694.4 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s), shading units (7168 versus 2560), texture mapping units (448 versus 160), and ray tracing cores (56 versus 40). Its 48 GB of HBM2e memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, high-capacity memory pool that the system-shared memory of the AMD part cannot match. The 300 W TDP and dual-slot form factor are appropriate for an accelerator with no display outputs.

The AMD Radeon 8065S is the appropriate choice for mobile and integrated graphics scenarios. Its 55 W TDP, IGP slot width, and portable device dependent display outputs position it for laptops and compact systems. It delivers 192.0 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, which the Intel part cannot provide at 0 MPixel/s. Its boost clock of 3000 MHz is substantially higher, and its 4 nm TSMC process node suggests greater efficiency per watt, though power efficiency figures are not directly recorded. The 308 mm² die size is considerably smaller than the 1280 mm² Intel die.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores, so percentile standings are identical at 50. The average benchmark score is zero for both. The choice between them is dictated by the target platform. Data center server deployments require the Intel part's memory capacity, compute throughput, and lack of display outputs. Mobile devices require the AMD part's low power envelope, integrated form factor, and display connectivity. The recorded data does not support a performance ranking without benchmark results, but the specification differences clearly separate these products into distinct market segments.