AMD Radeon 8065S vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the NVIDIA B300. Both entries report an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, which indicates that neither part has accumulated measurable performance data in the current database records. The wins counter shows zero for both products, confirming that no comparative testing has been recorded.

This absence of benchmark data is itself informative. The two products occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the lack of overlap in testing reflects their divergent design targets. The AMD Radeon 8065S is a mobile integrated graphics processor built for portable devices, while the NVIDIA B300 is a server-class accelerator module with no display outputs. The database shows no shared workload results, no synthetic scores, and no gaming or compute benchmarks that would allow a direct performance comparison.

What can be examined instead is the theoretical compute ceiling derived from each product's specifications. The Radeon 8065S delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly five times higher, and 1,231.8 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 16:1 ratio, which is approximately 80 times higher. These figures describe peak throughput, not real-world application results, but they establish the relative compute scale separating the two products.

The rasterization throughput numbers follow a similar pattern but with a notable inversion. The Radeon 8065S achieves a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 480.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA B300 achieves a pixel rate of 48.77 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s. The B300 has a much higher texture rate, roughly 2.5 times that of the 8065S, but its pixel rate is only about a quarter of the AMD part. This suggests that the B300 prioritizes texture-heavy compute workloads while the 8065S maintains higher fill-rate throughput for traditional graphics rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8065S wins in scenarios that demand conventional graphics rendering, specifically pixel fill-rate. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate dwarfs the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s, meaning the mobile part can push more pixels per second in rasterization-heavy tasks. The 8065S also has 64 ROPs compared to 24 ROPs on the B300, reinforcing its advantage in final pixel output stages. For portable devices, the 8065S also wins on power draw at 55 W versus 1400 W, and it requires no power connectors while the B300 needs a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

The NVIDIA B300 wins in raw compute throughput across both FP32 and FP16 workloads. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance is about five times the 8065S's 15.36 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 1,231.8 TFLOPS represents a massive advantage for AI training and inference workloads. The B300 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth with 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus delivering 4.10 TB/s, whereas the 8065S relies on system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth. The B300's 592 texture mapping units and 592 tensor cores provide specialized hardware for deep learning operations, while the 8065S has no tensor cores listed.

The B300 further wins on shading unit count with 18,944 units versus 2,560 on the 8065S, and on texture rate at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s. The B300 also has a higher base clock at 1665 MHz versus 1295 MHz, though the 8065S has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 2032 MHz. The B300 supports 8 Gbps effective memory speed, while the 8065S memory speed is system-dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately five times the AMD Radeon 8065S's 15.36 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory characteristics vary based on the host device.

Q: Which product has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S achieves 192.0 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA B300's 48.77 GPixel/s. The 8065S also has 64 ROPs compared to 24 ROPs on the B300.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 has a TDP of 1400 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B300 support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: The database lists no API support for the NVIDIA B300, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked as null. The AMD Radeon 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which product has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA B300 has 18,944 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 8065S has 2,560 shading units. The B300 also has 592 texture mapping units compared to 160 on the 8065S.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses a 4 nm process node and has a die size of 308 mm², while the NVIDIA B300 uses a 5 nm process node and has no recorded die size. The B300 has 104,000 million transistors, while the 8065S transistor count is unknown.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2032 MHz. The B300 memory runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the 8065S memory clock is system-shared.

Memory specifications are entirely different: the 8065S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e with a 4096-bit bus and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores, while the B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores with no ray tracing core count listed.

Power and form factor differ sharply: the 8065S has a TDP of 55 W and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the B300 has a TDP of 1400 W and is an SXM Module requiring a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The 8065S uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the B300 also uses PCIe 5.0 x16 but has no display outputs.

API support differs: the 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 lists no API support. Release dates differ as well: the 8065S was released on 2025-12-31, while the B300 was released on 2025-09-10. Production status is Active for both.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8065S is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Gorgon Halo chip, belonging to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The NVIDIA B300 is built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture with the GB110 chip, belonging to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: one optimized for mobile integrated graphics, the other for server accelerators.

The 8065S uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the B300 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The B300 integrates 104,000 million transistors, while the 8065S transistor count is not recorded. The 8065S has a die size of 308 mm², while the B300 die size is not recorded.

Compute unit organization differs markedly. The 8065S has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 raster operation units, and 592 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count listed. The B300's tensor cores indicate a focus on AI and deep learning workloads, while the 8065S's ray tracing cores suggest a focus on graphics rendering with hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Memory architecture is a key differentiator. The 8065S relies on system-shared memory, meaning it uses the host device's main memory with bandwidth dependent on the system configuration. The B300 uses 144 GB of dedicated HBM3e memory with a 4096-bit bus and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, providing high-capacity, high-bandwidth memory for large compute workloads.

The predecessor and successor lineage also differs. The 8065S's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile with no successor, while the B300's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. This places the B300 in an active product cycle with a defined roadmap, while the 8065S appears to be a standalone mobile part.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two products serve entirely different purposes and should not be cross-shopped. The AMD Radeon 8065S is a mobile integrated graphics processor with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It is designed for lightweight laptops and handheld devices where power efficiency and compact size are priorities. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs make it capable of handling conventional graphics rendering for such devices.

The NVIDIA B300 is a server accelerator with a 1400 W TDP, an SXM Module form factor, and no display outputs. It is designed for data center compute workloads, particularly those that can exploit its 592 tensor cores and 1,231.8 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. Its 144 GB of HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth supports large models and datasets that would be impossible to fit in the 8065S's system-shared memory.

The choice between these products depends entirely on the use case. A portable device manufacturer would select the 8065S for its low power draw, integrated form factor, and graphics-focused feature set. A data center operator would select the B300 for its massive compute throughput, tensor core acceleration, and high-capacity HBM3e memory. The database contains no benchmark results that would allow a direct comparison, because no realistic workload spans both product categories.

The specification differences confirm this split. The 8065S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for gaming and consumer graphics applications. The B300 lists no API support, indicating it is not intended for traditional graphics rendering. The 8065S has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 2032 MHz, while the B300 has a higher base clock at 1665 MHz versus 1295 MHz. The 8065S has a smaller pixel rate advantage but the B300 dominates in texture rate and raw compute.

For users seeking a mobile graphics solution, the 8065S is the only viable option given its IGP form factor and 55 W power envelope. For users seeking maximum compute throughput, the B300 is the clear choice with five times the FP32 performance and roughly 80 times the FP16 performance. The production status for both is Active, meaning both are currently available in the market, but their target audiences have no overlap.