AMD Radeon 8065S vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 8065S is the decisive choice for any task requiring graphics throughput, as it holds an overwhelming advantage in raw compute metrics over the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. The data confirms a generational and architectural gulf: the Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 against the Intel part's 307.2 GFLOPS, a 50x difference in shader output. For gaming, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated workload, the AMD part is the only viable option from these two.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile exists for a different purpose entirely. Its 15 W TDP, versus the Radeon's 55 W, and its 300 MHz base clock indicate a design focused on minimal power draw for basic display output and light 2D workloads. The data shows it is not a competitor in performance; it is a fallback integrated solution. Users needing any 3D capability should select the AMD Radeon 8065S, while those prioritizing maximum energy efficiency for office tasks or media playback on a portable device might consider the Intel part, but only if the workload never exceeds basic graphics.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict relies strictly on architectural and specification analysis. The Radeon 8065S wins every measurable performance category by a wide margin, while the Intel UHD 710 Mobile wins only in power efficiency and its earlier release date.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 floating-point performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32, which is exactly 50 times higher than the 307.2 GFLOPS FP32 of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the AMD Radeon 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has 2560 shading units, compared to 128 shading units on the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, a 20x difference.

Q: What is the pixel rate of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S achieves 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile achieves 4.800 GPixel/s.

Q: When was each GPU released?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile was released on 2023-01-03, and the AMD Radeon 8065S was released on 2025-12-31.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8065S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Gorgon Halo chip, belonging to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 308 mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses the Generation 12.2 architecture on the Raptor Lake chip, part of the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The Radeon 8065S features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The Radeon's texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s, versus 9.600 GTexel/s for the Intel. The Radeon 8065S supports a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses a Ring Bus interface.

In terms of API support, the Radeon 8065S reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon also has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus the Intel's 1200 MHz, and a higher base clock at 1295 MHz versus 300 MHz. The Radeon's FP16 performance is 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Intel's FP16 is 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating different compute precision handling.

Specification Differences

The TDP differs significantly: the AMD Radeon 8065S is rated at 55 W, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is rated at 15 W. The Radeon lists power connectors as "None" and uses a slot width of IGP; the Intel part also uses IGP slot width with no power connector data.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The Radeon 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The Radeon's boost clock is 2.5 times higher than the Intel's boost clock, and its base clock is over 4 times higher.

Memory configurations are both listed as System Shared, with system-dependent bandwidth for both. The bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD versus Ring Bus for Intel. The production status for both is Active. The release dates differ, with the Intel part released on 2023-01-03 and the AMD part on 2025-12-31. The Radeon 8065S has a listed predecessor of Polaris Mobile, while the Intel UHD 710 Mobile has a successor of Arc Graphics-M.

The Radeon 8065S has a die size of 308 mm², while the Intel part has no die size recorded. Transistor counts are unknown for both. The Radeon's pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 480.0 GTexel/s versus 9.600 GTexel/s. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but DirectX support differs as noted above.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, and both have zero average benchmark scores. However, the specification data provides a clear quantitative comparison across compute metrics.

The most dominant win for the AMD Radeon 8065S is in FP32 performance. At 15.36 TFLOPS, it is exactly 50 times the Intel's 307.2 GFLOPS. This means for every floating-point operation the Intel part completes, the Radeon completes 50. In texture throughput, the Radeon's 480.0 GTexel/s is 50 times the Intel's 9.600 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate shows a 40x gap: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s.

Shading unit count favors AMD at 2560 versus 128, a 20x difference. Texture mapping units are 160 versus 8, a 20x difference. ROPs are 64 versus 4, a 16x difference. Ray tracing cores exist only on the AMD part, with 40 cores; the Intel part has none. The Radeon's boost clock of 3000 MHz is 2.5 times the Intel's 1200 MHz, and its base clock of 1295 MHz is over 4 times the Intel's 300 MHz.

In FP16 performance, the Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 equals FP32 throughput. The Intel part delivers 614.4 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is double its FP32 rate. Even with that efficiency, the Radeon's FP16 is exactly 25 times higher than the Intel's FP16.

The only area where the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile shows a comparative advantage is power draw. Its 15 W TDP is less than one-third of the Radeon's 55 W. This is not a performance win but an efficiency metric, and the database shows no benchmark where the Intel part wins on speed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its 2560 shading units and 40 ray tracing cores make it suitable for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, including hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the Intel part cannot handle due to lacking RT cores and only supporting DirectX 12 (12_1). The Radeon's 15.36 TFLOPS FP32 and 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate capability for 3D rendering, modern game titles, and GPU compute tasks. Its 3000 MHz boost clock and 4 nm process suggest high sustained performance within its 55 W envelope.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins only in power efficiency. At 15 W TDP, it consumes about 27% of the Radeon's power budget. This makes it a fit for ultraportable devices where battery life is prioritized over graphics capability. Its 300 MHz base clock and 1200 MHz boost clock indicate it is designed for basic display output, video playback, and 2D applications. The Ring Bus interface suggests tight integration with the CPU, suitable for low-power system-on-chip designs.

The Radeon 8065S, with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and 308 mm² die, is a high-end integrated part for gaming laptops or mobile workstations. The Intel part, with no die size recorded and a 10 nm process, is a minimal integrated solution. Users requiring any modern 3D acceleration, ray tracing, or high-resolution texture work should choose the AMD Radeon 8065S. Users whose only need is a display output with minimal power draw might select the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, but the data shows no performance scenario where it competes.