AMD Radeon 8065S vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon 8065S and the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile occupy opposite ends of the integrated graphics spectrum, and the recorded data confirms that the AMD part is in a different performance class entirely. The Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel part manages 384.0 GFLOPS, a 40-fold gap in raw shading throughput. The verdict from the database is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 8065S is the choice for any workload involving 3D rendering, modern gaming, or compute-heavy tasks, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile exists primarily for basic display output and low-intensity 2D workloads in ultra-low-power systems.

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Radeon 8065S as a high-end integrated solution built for demanding graphics tasks. With 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, it is architecturally a full discrete-class GPU packaged as an IGP. Its 40 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) mean it can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and the latest graphics API features. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, by contrast, has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and only DirectX 12 (12_1) support. For users who require playable frame rates in modern titles, the AMD part is the only viable option. For systems whose sole purpose is office productivity, video playback, or lightweight web browsing, the Intel part suffices at a fraction of the power draw. The Intel GPU is rated at 6 W TDP, while the AMD part is rated at 55 W, so the tradeoff is stark: performance versus efficiency. The database shows no benchmark wins for either side, but the theoretical peak rates alone decide the matter.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed Gorgon Halo, belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses the Xe-LP architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with the chip codenamed Twin Lake, part of the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm directly affects transistor density and power efficiency, though neither die size nor transistor count is recorded for Intel, and AMD’s die size is listed at 308 mm².

The execution resources differ by an order of magnitude. AMD’s GPU packs 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while Intel’s part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The AMD part also includes 40 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Intel design. The FP32 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS for AMD versus 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel, a 40x difference. The FP16 rates also diverge: AMD achieves 15.36 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning equal FP16 and FP32 throughput, while Intel reaches 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, indicating half-rate FP32. This means AMD can process FP16 workloads at the same speed as FP32, while Intel’s FP16 advantage is limited to a 2x boost over its already low FP32 baseline.

Clock behavior further separates the two. The AMD Radeon 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, a substantial range that allows it to scale up under load. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz, reflecting its low-power design. The pixel rate for AMD is 192.0 GPixel/s, versus 4.000 GPixel/s for Intel, a 48-fold difference. Texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 12.00 GTexel/s for Intel, a 40-fold difference. Both use system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent, so memory performance is not fixed for either.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins in every compute and graphics category that the recorded data can measure. Its 40 ray tracing cores give it dedicated hardware for ray-traced effects, which the Intel GPU cannot accelerate at all. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support enables features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while Intel is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD part’s 3000 MHz boost clock, combined with 2560 shading units, provides a massive advantage in any shader-bound workload, from 3D rendering to GPU-accelerated compute. The 64 ROPs ensure high fill-rate performance for resolution-heavy tasks, as reflected in the 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins only in power efficiency and integration simplicity. Its 6 W TDP is a fraction of AMD’s 55 W, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs in compact portables. It uses a Ring Bus interface, while AMD uses PCIe 5.0 x16, but for an IGP this matters little in practice. The Intel part’s lower clocks (300 MHz base, 1000 MHz boost) and smaller execution footprint mean it generates far less heat and requires less cooling. For systems that never run 3D applications, the Intel GPU provides adequate display output and basic video acceleration without the power budget of the AMD solution. Neither GPU has a recorded benchmark score or wins in the head-to-head data, so the analysis relies on the theoretical peak rates and architectural features from the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, a 40-fold difference.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel part has no ray tracing cores listed, while the AMD Radeon 8065S includes 40 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S is rated at 55 W TDP, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is rated at 6 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

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 Graphics 24EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz.

Q: Are both GPUs integrated?

A: Yes, both are listed with a slot width of IGP, and both use system-shared memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no actual benchmark runs for either GPU, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. However, the theoretical peak rates provide a clear quantitative comparison. The largest single gap is in pixel throughput: the AMD Radeon 8065S achieves 192.0 GPixel/s, which is 48 times the Intel part’s 4.000 GPixel/s. This means the AMD GPU can fill a 4K frame buffer nearly 50 times faster, assuming the system memory bandwidth is sufficient. In texture work, the AMD part’s 480.0 GTexel/s versus Intel’s 12.00 GTexel/s is a 40x advantage, which directly impacts textured 3D scenes.

The FP32 gap is equally stark: 15.36 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, a 40x difference. For FP16, AMD maintains 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1), while Intel reaches 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). Even with Intel’s FP16 boost, AMD is still roughly 20 times faster in FP16. The shading unit count (2560 versus 192) and TMU count (160 versus 12) reinforce the same story. The ROP count of 64 versus 4 explains the pixel rate gap. The AMD part’s boost clock of 3000 MHz is three times Intel’s 1000 MHz boost, and its base clock of 1295 MHz is over four times Intel’s 300 MHz base. These figures together show that the AMD Radeon 8065S is not merely faster, it is in a different performance tier entirely. The only metric where Intel leads is power draw, with 6 W versus 55 W, and that efficiency comes at the cost of all compute throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process is 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The architecture is RDNA 3.5 for AMD versus Xe-LP for Intel. The die size is 308 mm² for AMD, while Intel’s die size is unknown. AMD’s chip is Gorgon Halo, Intel’s is Twin Lake. The generation names differ: Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) for AMD, HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) for Intel. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD versus Ring Bus for Intel.

The execution resources show the largest divergence. AMD has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 40 RT cores. Intel has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no RT cores. Clock speeds: AMD base 1295 MHz, boost 3000 MHz; Intel base 300 MHz, boost 1000 MHz. Pixel rates: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rates: 480.0 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 15.36 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 55 W versus 6 W. The API support differs in DirectX version: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for AMD versus 12 (12_1) for Intel, while both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both are IGP slot width with portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.