Arc B580 vs Radeon 8065S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8065S with Arc B580, including specs and performance data.
8065S outperforms B580 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 98 | 138 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 91.46 |
| Power efficiency | 62.21 | 15.67 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | Gorgon Halo | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2026 (recently) | 13 December 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | 2670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 480.0 | 427.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.67 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 80 |
| TMUs | 160 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 18 MB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 456.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 130−140
+10.2%
| 118
−10.2%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
+11.1%
| 63
−11.1%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+2.6%
| 39
−2.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.95 |
| 4K | no data | 6.38 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+12.1%
|
210−220
−12.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
−5.7%
|
112
+5.7%
|
| Palworld | 120−130
+17.3%
|
100−110
−17.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 120−130
−42.7%
|
177
+42.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.5%
|
130−140
−7.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+12.1%
|
210−220
−12.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+9.3%
|
97
−9.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
−22.7%
|
173
+22.7%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+13.7%
|
160−170
−13.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+14%
|
150−160
−14%
|
| Palworld | 120−130
+17.3%
|
100−110
−17.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.2%
|
150−160
−9.2%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+11.1%
|
220−230
−11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.5%
|
130−140
−7.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+12.1%
|
210−220
−12.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+29.3%
|
82
−29.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
−13.5%
|
160
+13.5%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+13.7%
|
160−170
−13.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+14%
|
150−160
−14%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+1.4%
|
140
−1.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+2.8%
|
106
−2.8%
|
| Palworld | 120−130
+17.3%
|
100−110
−17.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.2%
|
150−160
−9.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
−39.6%
|
236
+39.6%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+11.1%
|
220−230
−11.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+7.5%
|
130−140
−7.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+37.7%
|
77
−37.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
−5.7%
|
149
+5.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+14%
|
150−160
−14%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+9.2%
|
150−160
−9.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+98.8%
|
85
−98.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 190−200
+13.7%
|
160−170
−13.7%
|
| Palworld | 120−130
+17.3%
|
100−110
−17.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+21.4%
|
95−100
−21.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+15.8%
|
270−280
−15.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+37.7%
|
69
−37.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+8.1%
|
62
−8.1%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+10.4%
|
250−260
−10.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+12.1%
|
95−100
−12.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
−1.8%
|
56
+1.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+18.9%
|
110−120
−18.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+33.8%
|
68
−33.8%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+17.5%
|
100−110
−17.5%
|
| Palworld | 70−75
+18.6%
|
55−60
−18.6%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+30.8%
|
78
−30.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−9.5%
|
46
+9.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
−13.5%
|
84
+13.5%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+14.3%
|
230−240
−14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+16.1%
|
60−65
−16.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−20%
|
30
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+5.1%
|
59
−5.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+20.3%
|
70−75
−20.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+24.5%
|
50−55
−24.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+19.6%
|
50−55
−19.6%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
High
| Palworld | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 8065S and Arc B580 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S is 10% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8065S is 11% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 8065S is 3% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 8065S is 99% faster.
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc B580 is 43% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S performs better in 46 tests (74%)
- Arc B580 performs better in 10 tests (16%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.23 | 38.49 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 190 Watt |
Radeon 8065S has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 245% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8065S is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc B580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 8065S is a notebook graphics card while Arc B580 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
