AMD Radeon 8065S vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core architectural difference between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Gorgon Halo chip, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 3.9 times the 15.36 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 8065S.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth.

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

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S has a TDP of 55 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W, requires an 8-pin EPS power connector, and recommends a 1000 W power supply.

Q: What benchmark data is available for the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The recorded data shows a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334891 for the NVIDIA H200 NVL. The database has no benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 8065S.

Q: How does the NVIDIA H200 NVL rank compared to other GPUs in the database?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. It is 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200, 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, and 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8065S and the NVIDIA H200 NVL represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, a mobile-oriented integrated GPU built on the Gorgon Halo chip. It uses RDNA 3.5 architecture and is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process with a die size of 308 mm². Its transistor count is not recorded in the database. The chip is designated as an IGP, meaning it is designed to be integrated into a portable device, and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation and is built around the GH100 chip. It uses the Hopper architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 814 mm² and contains 80,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². This is a dual-slot server accelerator with a 267 mm length and 111 mm height. It has no display outputs, reflecting its compute-focused role.

The compute resources differ sharply. The AMD Radeon 8065S has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has 16896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. Ray tracing core count is not recorded for the NVIDIA part. The AMD chip reaches a boost clock of 3000 MHz from a 1295 MHz base, while the NVIDIA chip boosts to 1785 MHz from a 1365 MHz base.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The AMD Radeon 8065S relies entirely on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA H200 NVL integrates 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit interface, achieving 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth and running at 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed. The API support also differs: the AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and no wins are recorded for either side. However, the available data allows for meaningful comparison through the NVIDIA H200 NVL's single recorded benchmark and its nearest rival scores.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334891. This places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Against its nearest recorded rivals, the H200 NVL trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, with that rival scoring 369831. It also sits 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345482. Conversely, the H200 NVL leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3% (that part scores 317994) and the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2% (that part scores 295763).

The AMD Radeon 8065S has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile rank of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all GPUs, but without measured scores, direct numerical comparison to the H200 NVL is not possible from the recorded data. What can be stated is that the H200 NVL's compute specifications vastly exceed those of the AMD part: 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 versus 15.36 TFLOPS, 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 versus 15.36 TFLOPS, and 4.89 TB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth versus system dependent shared memory.

The texture and pixel rates reinforce the gap. The NVIDIA part delivers 942.5 GTexel/s of texture fill rate versus 480.0 GTexel/s for the AMD part, a 1.96x advantage. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part, a 4.48x advantage for AMD. This reflects the different ROP counts: 64 for AMD versus 24 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA H200 NVL's higher shading unit count (16896 versus 2560) and tensor core count (528 versus none) indicate a design aimed at parallel compute rather than rasterization.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Gorgon Halo versus GH100
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Hopper
• Generation: Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: unknown versus 80,000 million
• Die size: 308 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor density: not recorded versus 98.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1295 MHz versus 1365 MHz
• Boost clock: 3000 MHz versus 1785 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 1593 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective
• Memory size: System Shared versus 141 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus HBM3e
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 6144 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 4.89 TB/s
• Shading units: 2560 versus 16896
• TMUs: 160 versus 528
• ROPs: 64 versus 24
• Ray tracing cores: 40 versus not recorded
• Tensor cores: not recorded versus 528
• Pixel rate: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 480.0 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 15.36 TFLOPS versus 60.32 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 15.36 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W versus 600 W
• Slot width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 8-pin EPS
• Suggested PSU: not recorded versus 1000 W
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: not recorded versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile versus Server Ada
• Successor: not recorded versus Server Blackwell
• Release date: 2025-12-31 versus 2024-11-17
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 50 versus 100
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 334891

The Verdict

The recorded data paints a clear picture of two GPUs built for entirely different purposes. The NVIDIA H200 NVL is a server-class accelerator with the highest possible percentile ranking (100th) and a substantial Geekbench OpenCL score of 334891. It delivers 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, 120.6 TFLOPS FP16, and 4.89 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 141 GB of HBM3e. Its nearest rivals in the database are all enterprise compute parts, and it holds a 5.3% edge over the AMD Instinct MI300X and a 13.2% edge over the NVIDIA L40S. The H200 NVL is positioned among the top-tier compute accelerators in the database.

The AMD Radeon 8065S, by contrast, is a mobile integrated GPU with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and system shared memory. It has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. Its strengths lie in its high boost clock (3000 MHz), its superior pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s), and its full graphics API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has no graphics API support recorded at all.

For compute workloads, the data indicates the NVIDIA H200 NVL is the stronger part by a wide margin across every recorded compute metric. For mobile or integrated graphics applications where power consumption, portability, and conventional graphics API support matter, the AMD Radeon 8065S is the only one of the two with relevant capabilities. The two parts do not compete in the same market segment, and the recorded specifications confirm that divergence.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 8065S:

• Pixel throughput: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s
• Boost clock: 3000 MHz versus 1785 MHz
• Power efficiency: 55 W TDP versus 600 W TDP
• Form factor: integrated into the host device versus a dual-slot 267 mm add-in card
• Graphics API compatibility: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all three
• No external power connectors required
• Display output capability versus none on the NVIDIA part
• Smaller die: 308 mm² versus 814 mm²

NVIDIA H200 NVL:

• FP32 compute: 60.32 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS
• FP16 compute: 120.6 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS
• Shading units: 16896 versus 2560
• Texture units: 528 versus 160
• Tensor cores: 528 versus none recorded
• Memory capacity: 141 GB versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 4.89 TB/s versus system dependent
• Memory bus width: 6144 bit versus system shared
• Texture rate: 942.5 GTexel/s versus 480.0 GTexel/s
• Transistor count: 80,000 million versus unknown
• Die size: 814 mm² versus 308 mm²
• Benchmark score: 334891 versus 0 recorded
• Percentile ranking: 100 versus 50

The data indicates the NVIDIA H200 NVL is the choice for compute-intensive server workloads, and the AMD Radeon 8065S is the choice for portable, low-power integrated graphics scenarios. Neither part has recorded wins in direct head-to-head testing, but the specification differences define clear domains of advantage.