AMD Radeon 8065S vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two very different mobile graphics solutions. The AMD Radeon 8065S is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on a 4 nm process with a 55 W power envelope, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is a discrete, single-slot workstation GPU with a 140 W power draw. The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between them, as the AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores. The NVIDIA part, however, has a substantial benchmark presence with an average score of 27135, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD 8065S sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero due to a lack of data.

Benchmark results indicate the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is the performance leader in every measurable category. Its FP32 compute reaches 36.83 TFLOPS, its texture rate is 575.4 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 197.3 GPixel/s. The AMD 8065S offers 15.36 TFLOPS FP32, 480.0 GTexel/s, and 192.0 GPixel/s respectively. The data implies the AMD part is positioned for low-power, portable devices where performance per watt matters more than absolute throughput, while the NVIDIA part targets professional workloads requiring sustained performance and dedicated memory.

For users with workloads that can use the NVIDIA GPU's capabilities, the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is the clear choice based on recorded scores. Its PassMark G3D score of 28427 is substantial, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 194168 shows strong API performance. The AMD 8065S should be considered only for systems where the 55 W power envelope and integrated design are mandatory constraints. The data does not support choosing the AMD part for raw performance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Its PassMark DirectX 12 score of 97, DirectX 11 score of 276, DirectX 10 score of 173, and DirectX 9 score of 354 all indicate functional API coverage across legacy and modern graphics interfaces. The PassMark G2D score of 1265 and G3D score of 28427 further confirm its strength in both 2D and 3D workloads. The GPU compute score of 14805 shows meaningful compute capability beyond graphics rendering.

The AMD Radeon 8065S has no recorded wins because it has no benchmark entries in the database. Its advantage lies in its integrated nature: it requires no power connectors, occupies no expansion slot (listed as IGP), and draws 55 W. This makes it suitable for compact portable devices where the NVIDIA card's 140 W draw and single-slot physical footprint would be prohibitive. The AMD part uses system shared memory, which means its bandwidth is system dependent, while the NVIDIA card has dedicated 24 GB of GDDR7 memory with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA part also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus, it provides 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part's memory configuration is entirely system dependent, offering no fixed capacity or bandwidth figures. For workloads that require large datasets in VRAM, the NVIDIA solution is the only viable option based on the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5 with the Gorgon Halo chip, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 308 mm², and transistor count is listed as unknown. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB203 chip, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm process. Its die size is 378 mm², and it packs 45,600 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly. The AMD part has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 40 ray tracing cores, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 70 RT cores, and 96 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU also includes 280 tensor cores, while the AMD part has no tensor core field listed. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture is designed for AI and machine learning workloads, while the AMD part focuses on conventional graphics.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD 8065S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and boosts to 3000 MHz, a substantial boost range. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1230 MHz and boosts to 2055 MHz, a more modest increase. Despite the lower boost clock, the NVIDIA part achieves higher throughput due to its far greater number of execution units. The AMD part's FP32 and FP16 rates are both 15.36 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, and the NVIDIA part also shows a 1:1 ratio at 36.83 TFLOPS for both precision levels.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more raw compute power based on the database?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell delivers 36.83 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, more than double the AMD Radeon 8065S's 15.36 TFLOPS in both precision formats.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The NVIDIA card uses 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent, so no fixed capacity or bandwidth is recorded.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD Radeon 8065S draws 55 W and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell draws 140 W and uses a single 16-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Both support ray tracing. The AMD part has 40 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 70 RT cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The AMD 8065S is an integrated GPU with no slot width, designed for portable devices. The NVIDIA card is single-slot, measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Q: How does the NVIDIA card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The recorded data shows the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell averages 27135, which is 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT (27425) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (27435), 1.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (27565), and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26683).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 8065S and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell. The AMD part has no benchmark scores recorded at all. The NVIDIA part, however, provides a full suite of results. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 4648. The Geekbench Vulkan score reaches 194168. PassMark results show 173 in DirectX 10, 276 in DirectX 11, 97 in DirectX 12, and 354 in DirectX 9. The G2D score is 1265, the G3D score is 28427, and the GPU compute score is 14805.

The closest comparable data comes from the NVIDIA card's nearest rivals. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell's average score of 27135 places it within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, which scores 27565. This is a notable result, as the RTX 3090 is a high-end desktop part. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell also trails the RX 6700 XT by only 1.1% and the RTX 4070 Mobile by 1.1%, while leading the RTX A4000 by 1.7%. These proximity scores suggest the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell delivers desktop-class performance in a mobile form factor.

Without any recorded benchmarks for the AMD 8065S, a numerical comparison is impossible. The only available metrics are the architectural specifications. The NVIDIA part has 3.5 times the shading units, 1.75 times the TMUs, 1.5 times the ROPs, and 1.75 times the RT cores. Its FP32 throughput is 2.4 times higher. These figures indicate a large performance gap, but the absence of actual AMD benchmark data prevents a definitive performance delta.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Radeon 8065S uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell uses Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm process. Die sizes are 308 mm² for AMD and 378 mm² for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA chip contains 45,600 million transistors, while the AMD transistor count is unknown.

Shading units number 2560 for AMD and 8960 for NVIDIA. Texture mapping units are 160 versus 280. ROPs are 64 versus 96. Ray tracing cores are 40 versus 70. The NVIDIA part has 280 tensor cores; the AMD part has none listed. Base clocks are 1295 MHz for AMD and 1230 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clocks are 3000 MHz for AMD and 2055 MHz for NVIDIA. Pixel rates are 192.0 GPixel/s for AMD and 197.3 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 480.0 GTexel/s versus 575.4 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 15.36 TFLOPS for AMD and 36.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The AMD part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1750 MHz, 28 Gbps effective. Power draws are 55 W for AMD and 140 W for NVIDIA. The AMD part has no power connectors and is an IGP. The NVIDIA part is single-slot, uses one 16-pin connector, and requires a 300 W power supply. The NVIDIA card measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, while the AMD part has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD and 4x DisplayPort 2.1b for NVIDIA. Release dates are late 2025 for AMD and March 2025 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part is in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile.